The Instigator
austinoclavanski123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The war on libya was no means of protcting civilians!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,030 times Debate No: 21335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

austinoclavanski123

Pro

Libyan Conflict!

As a person living in a nation which has strong imput in the war organistation called NATO, an organisation that was set up to put an end to the USSR, i realised the lies they were producing.

There is lots of reliable evidence on libya sos wesite, which i think maybe a little bit inapropriate,such as videos, journals and diagrams of the lies produced by nato nations. Also another peice of evidence is an article published by the communist party of Great britain, marxist lennenist. HERES THE LINK!
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...

On the night of the attack, NATO fired 112 tmohawk missiles from ships and submarines which killed 64 people and leaving hundreds injured on the first deadly night! In August 2011, a statisitc was produced showing the mass and brutal killings of civillians, the ones NATO were protecting from the so called 'dictator' colonal Gaddaffi! It was that 6,121 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes in the first 100 days. 141 of which were children and 260 were women.
The rebals are mainly made up of Islamic extremist linking to Al quida, the same oganisation whch NATO are meant to be fighting terror on. This sums up the ridicualaty of wars today, commited by the brutal NATO and its nations! Heres a link to a video produced on youtube showing al-quida flags swiftly flying over one of Libyans court houses.
http://youtu.be....

This debate is very important and your votes will give a great understanding of what people believe and think today, a year on after the first invasion,and if this differs from any other reports produced on the BBC or other news cooperations who took an immidiate stance supporting the brutal, dis-honest and crimial war on a succesful country called Libya!
imabench

Con

First Off, I would like to inform voters that the Con is very heavily biased against Europe, NATO, and facts since his only actual source he used is the same online newspaper that has had these headlines,

"Socialism needed to save humanity"
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...
"British workers must refuse to have anything to do with the criminal war that is being planned against the sovereign nation of Iran"
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...
"Time to face it: capitalism must go!"
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...

Here's one calling Kim Jung Il of North Korea a HERO
"Comrade Kim Jong Il devoted his entire life to the freedom and happiness of the Korean people"
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...

Here's one I find a little concerning regarding why the Pro really is against NATO involved in Libya. Its not because they are accidentally killing civilians, it may be because the same extremist biased website The Pro is sourcing has advocated victory for Gaddafi
http://www.cpgb-ml.org...

Point is, the Pro is pretty biased in his views and arguments and that should be taken into consideration. His source is also very poor since it claims over 6,000 civilians died from NATO bombings when total civilian deaths are just over 1000

Now for the actual arguments.

The source the Pro uses comes from the same extremist, misinformed, and poorly written website that claims other things such as Kim Jung Il is a hero, the sanctions against Iran is unjust, that capitalism must go, etc. So this source should not be taken seriously since it comes from a very biased and unreliable website.

Now that thats out of the way allow me to justify intervention in Libya by NATO.

In Tunisia back in December of 2010, a single man immolated himself (lit himself on fire as a form of suicide) as protest to Tunisia's harsh government treatment of its own people. The suicide spurred a great deal of unrest as people protested the mans treatment by the government and then quickly sarted protesting the government's inefficiency, poor results, lack of civil rights or political freedoms, etc etc and the people began protesting for massive reform or for a new government. This revolution was quite successful and the long time dictator of Tunisia was forced into exile while Tunisia transitioned into a Constitutional Republic.

The Success in Tunisia sparked protests in many other countries, the largest and most important one being in Egypt. Egypt like Tunisia was run y a long time dictator who suppressed the rights of the people and severely limited political freedoms, most notable the freedom of the press. Soon enough people began protesting the government and its long history of cruelty and that too ended in the successful dethronement of a dictator and called for the creation of a new government, while the military controlled the matters as the country transitioned.

This is where Libya comes into play. They are now bordering countries to the East and the West that have witnessed massive peaceful protests that have yielded very satisfactory results in terms of massive government reform. The people of Libya realized this and sure enough they began protesting against Gaddafi's rule, citing long time abuse from his regime and demanding reform. What separates Libya from Tunisia and Egypt though is that Gaddafi was hell-bent on remaining in power and would put to death thousands of his own people if thats what it would take.

Skip forward to the fighting. Libyan rebels hold much of the east side of the country next to Egypt, and Gaddafi is using extensive military force to try to exterminate all of them. This came after many known events where Gaddafi authorized the use of extreme force against peaceful protesters and a long history of oppressing his own people. So these were the actions NATO took regarding Libya and the reasons behind them.

1 - Froze the bank accounts of Libyan warlords and leaders to prevent thse funds form being used to purchase weaponry to then be used against protesters or rebels
2 - Enforced a No-fly zone to prevent Gadaffi from using aircraft or helicopters or any aerial means from ruthlessly killing rebels or civilians
3 - Coordinated with rebels through drone warfare to target and eliminate Pro-Gaddafi forces after the rebels proved they could indeed wage war against Gaddafi. The use of drones is single handedly the greatest contribution made in warfare designed to maximize results while inflicting as little harm on civilian populations as possible.
4 - Provided funding to the rebels to allow them to continue their struggle against Gaddafi's forces to fight for freedom
5 - Refrained from deploying ground units to prevent endangering troops and civilians
6 - Encouraging the UN to impose economic sanctions on Libya to protest the killing of civiilans

As for the Pros statements,
" from the so called 'dictator' colonal Gaddaffi" Gaddafi was indeed the dictator of Libya, And he had been for well voer 40 years
"The rebals are mainly made up of Islamic extremist linking to Al quida" Tht my friend is absolute bullsh*t and there is absolutely no evidence suggesting this is true
"This sums up the ridicualaty of wars today, commited by the brutal NATO and its nations" - That is completely your opinion.

So to conclude my argument, the war in Libya was entirely justified and NATO has continually acted in the best interests of the Libyan rebels and civilians who were oppressed and executed under the regime of Gaddafi.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://www.turkishnews.com...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.aljazeera.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.skuld.com...
Debate Round No. 1
austinoclavanski123

Pro

Well if you believe the bbc you will believe anything!

My point is that why didnt they intervene in Tunisia or Egypt? Because they are run by supporters of the Weteren world. Gaddaffi was very much against it. He mensioned in his green book " True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people." Which is totally correct. Did we, the people of the brutal and wealth seeking nations, choose to go into libya? NO! People agreed with the rebels because they were portrayed as good, law abiding, peaceful protesters even though they had guns from the start! You say Rebels were been executed, what are the rebels doing now? Even big news co-oprations who supported the rebels are having to say they are torturing and executing Gaddaffi supporters and Gaddafi rebels which is true! The things that they dont tell you is that rebels were torturing kids and women fighting for gaddaffi and the regime by whipping and sticking poles up their back-sides! there is graphic content on the internet showing this but it would not be appropriate to show and it is to horrific for the human eye to see. Here is an article published by RT (Russia Today) who were very good in the sense that they did not take sides.

http://rt.com...

You aid that there was no evidence explaining that al-quida were representing rebels, well there was a fine video showing that which I will put up again so you can double check it.

http://youtu.be...

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!! MICHEAL PARENTI HAS GOT IT SPOT ON!

There is clear evidence on hear that Colonal Gaddaffi had the majority of support in libya! 2 million (1/3 of the nation) rallied in his support clearly showing there fight against the imperialist nations and there little rats! Ths is raw footage of the event!

Ethnic clensing is happenng right now in libya! When these little rebel protests were happening i though there wasnt any black people around! This is because the rebels are racists, abit like there team mates NATO!

http://www.youtube.com...

There is also evidence that western agents stired up and worked extreamly closely with the rebels!

As Gill Scott Herron said, the revolution will not be televised! The Libyan rebels were not revolutionaries, they were paid rats by the imperialists!

The real reason why NATO went into libya was for the wealth and oil libya gained under Gaddafi's regime which gaddaffi gave to his people!
imabench

Con

"Well if you believe the bbc you will believe anything!"
Thank you for proving that you are indeed a whacked out communist who favors conspiracy news stories and not factually backed ones.

"My point is that why didnt they intervene in Tunisia or Egypt? Because they are run by supporters of the Weteren world"
Because Tunisia and Egypt didnt fall into a CIVIL WAR like Libya did. There was much more blood, violence, and gore in the Libya revolution than in Tunisia or Egypt combined.

"He mensioned in his green book " True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people." Which is totally correct."
Yes that is correct, but last I checked Gaddafi did not allow the direct participation of his people in elections which explains how he held his grip on power for 40+ years.

List of freedoms and rights suppressed or outlawed by Gaddafi
Freedom to assembly
Freedom of expression
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religious belief
Right against indefinite imprisonment
Right to being released from jail after they are found not guilty
Freedom from forced disappearances
Freedom of the presses
Right to emigrate

http://www.hrw.org...

So Gaddafi preached one thing and then ruled his own country the exact opposite way because he could do whatever the hell he wanted to do...

"People agreed with the rebels because they were portrayed as good, law abiding, peaceful protesters even though they had guns from the start"
Those protesters started out as simple protesters who were violently executed, it was only until they actually began to revolt did they take up arms, so your assumption that they had guns from the start is completely false.

" You say Rebels were been executed, what are the rebels doing now? Even big news co-oprations who supported the rebels are having to say they are torturing and executing Gaddaffi supporters "
I'm not here to argue that the Libyan rebels are saints or do only what is right, im here to argue that European intervention in Libya was done on behalf of the well being of those rebels, try to stay on topic.

"The things that they dont tell you is that rebels were torturing kids and women fighting for gaddaffi and the regime by whipping and sticking poles up their back-sides!"
Told you the Pro was a conspiracy nut, any proof Pro or is this from your beloved communist site?

". Here is an article published by RT (Russia Today) who were very good in the sense that they did not take sides.
http://rt.com...;
This is what that article says

"NATO’s intervention plunged Libya back into the Stone Age and the civil war cost the country’s economy more than $40 billion, shrinking it by 60%, according to the IMF. Crude oil production that contributed half of the country’s GDP, almost vanished. Foreign trade also suffered, with imports being damaged by the blocked access to its foreign assets."

So we have now another biased source that is putting the entire state of Libya's economy on NATO instead of the CIVIL WAR THAT JUST HAPPENED. Not very observant in Russia are they...

"You aid that there was no evidence explaining that al-quida were representing rebels"
You showed a video of one Al-Qaeda flag flying over a building somewhere In Libya that does not mean that a majority of Libyan rebels were Al-Qaeda operatives. If a Nazi flag flies here in America it does not mean a large majority of Americans are nazi's, it only means there are Nazi's in America. The same goes for your video that only implies there are Al-Qaeda epratives in Libya, not that all rebels are Al-Qaeda operatives

As for the reporter who claimed this is in Libya over a courthouse, Michael Parenti is the same nut who thinks the 2004 US presidential election was fixed, that global warming is a lie, and the man just so happens to be a RADICAL SOCIALIST that only the Pro would take seriously since he is a radical communist. So he isnt a credible source either.

As for the footage of the Gaddafi rally, that was 95% of the population of just once city supporting Gaddafi, Tripoli, the city that Gaddafi just so happens to center his military in. Even a third grader could guess that Gaddafi used his military to stage this elaborate rally for himself. Also Pro, 1/3 of the population is not the majority of a population....
http://www.intifada-palestine.com...

" 2 million (1/3 of the nation) rallied in his support clearly showing there fight against the imperialist nations and there little rats" - See how the Pro is heavily in support of Gaddafi and has had his perception so clouded by extremist communist websites shower him with lies?

"Ethnic clensing is happenng right now in libya!"
The source you gave doesnt work so this is yet another conspiracy theory.

" The Libyan rebels were not revolutionaries, they were paid rats by the imperialists!"
Conspiracy theory

"The real reason why NATO went into libya was for the wealth and oil"
Conspiracy theory

Look let me make this short and sweet, the Libyan rebels are not perfect saints acting justifiably 100% of the time. And just because the rebels arent perfect, the Pro sees them as Al-Qaeda imperialistic rats being paid off by NATO to overthrow Gaddafi to give NATO the nations oil or something stupid like that. All of his arguments he is basing these wildly inaccurate conspiracies on are severely communist or socialist biased sources or news articles that contain faulty information or do not tell the whole story. If the Pro had used actual dependabel sources he might have an argument but so far this entire debate hasnt been about him proving that NATO intervened to help people, the pro is using this debate just to sh*t on the West, NATO, and the rebels rather than sticking to the original resoultion.
Debate Round No. 2
austinoclavanski123

Pro

Just because you don't agree with my evidence, it doesn't mean they are not true! That is totally Igranant thinking that and back in round 1, you made a mock of me by pointing out the views of my party! You dont know anything about North Korea, and if you want we can argue about that another time!

Number 1: who controlls the media?

Number 2: All media is checked by a few lines owned by the imperialists!

Number 3: Do you want me to believe the Murdoch Press, the same company that tapped and hacked telephones of victims of crime and relatives of dead ones, because that is the cmpany you are getting your line from.

Number 4: You can't go around mocking and being terribly nasty to your apponants beause if you do, that auto-matically points out you are losing and under pressure.

My next point is that of Colonal Gaddaffi.

Before the conflict, many people did not know about Gaddaffi and his regime, but as soon as it happens,you think you are total experts. You know libya from the back of your hand do you? I know people who have been to Libya, who have met Gaddaffi personaly,and those people have given me the evidence and inspired me.

Colonal Gaddaffi,Muammar Al-Gaddaffi, was a generous, kind but hard man. He was the best leader in Africa!

As soon as Nelson Mandla was released after 30 years from a prison surving a sentance which was rascist and discriminant, he went and visited Gaddaffi himself. Now that on its own tells you alot about Gaddaffi and his regime.

Life in Libya with Leader Gaddafi:
1. Electricity for household use is free,
2. interest-free loans
3. during the study, governmant give to every student 2 300 dolars/month
4. receives the average salary for this profession if you do not find a job after graduation,
5. the state has paid for to work in the profession,
6. every unemployed person receives social assistance 15,000 $/year,
7. for marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2),
8. buying cars at factory prices,
9. LIBYA not owe anyone a cent,
10. free higher education abroad,
11. 25% of highly educated,
12. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15,
13. water in the middle of the desert, drinking water,
14. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR),
15. 6% poor people,
16. for each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for their needs.

Is Libya really an impoverished nation led by an evil tyrant and dictator? You dont see David Cameron or Barack Obama giving us $500 every year from the profits made from wars and oil! instead we have cut backs and reforms!

Also, the day of the supposable take over of Trippoli by Rebels, the film of it was shot in a town in india! This sums up the lies expressed by the imperialists media to take er a successfull nation.

Also, Gaddaffi created a system where he woud change the currency to a gold, African only instead of keeping the Dollar. This was to share the wealth throughout Africa and stop the USA controlling them.

THIS TIME!! LOOK AT MY VIDEOS!!!!

Libya can fight, fight for its own nation, a free nation, a rich nation, a fair nation, but when imperialists have another erge for money and wealth, the country will die, and now it is slowly dieing!

I really do hope i have taught you something! I have given you evidence, fair points, and hopefully inspiration!
imabench

Con

"All media is checked by a few lines owned by the imperialists!"
More conspiracies

"You dont know anything about North Korea, and if you want we can argue about that another time!"
Challenge accepted

" You can't go around mocking and being terribly nasty to your apponants beause if you do, that auto-matically points out you are losing and under pressure."
1) How do you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously when you go around making absurd claims like the one above with no reliable information
2) I most certainly am not losing and If you want proof skip to the very end of this debate.
3) I have used reliable sources and you have used communist biased sources and youtube, if you dont want me making fun of your sources, use some legit ones...

"I know people who have been to Libya, who have met Gaddaffi personally, and those people have given me the evidence and inspired me."
Then you need some new friends... Like NOW

"Colonal Gaddaffi,Muammar Al-Gaddaffi, was a generous, kind but hard man. He was the best leader in Africa!"
Based on no evidence at all.....

Life in Libya with Leader Gaddafi:
All these points the Pro has listed are the bribes that Gaddafi used towards his own people from wealth he siphoned off from his state own oil companies to keep his own people quite. Rather than make actual political reforms and improve the middle class, he showered them with bribes and when people wanted voting freedoms and freedom of speech Gaddafi ordered them to be put down.

"Gaddaffi created a system where he woud change the currency to a gold, African only instead of keeping the Dollar. This was to share the wealth throughout Africa and stop the USA controlling them."
Conspiracy...

"Libya can fight, fight for its own nation, a free nation, a rich nation, a fair nation, but when imperialists have another erge for money and wealth, the country will die, and now it is slowly dieing!"
Libyan people could not fight for their own freedom because Gaddafi was using jets, attack helicopters, artillery, and tanks against people armed with whatever they could steal from Gaddafi's forces. It most certainly not a fair fight and NATO stepped in just to level the playing field. Libya was most certainly not a free nation, it was not rich with 50% of its GDP coming from exporting oil, and it was not a fair nation if its a nation where you can be kept in prison for years after being found innocent. As for imperialists, grow up.

List of forfeited arguments by the Pro:
- 1 - Pro forfeits that his sources are very socialism or communism biased
- 2 - Pro forfeits that his sources are false since they claim that 6000 civilians died in one night when in reality only 1000 died over the course of the entire war
- 3 - Pro forfeits that Gaddafi was a "hard" dictator, which is a nice way of saying the word ruthless tyrant
- 4 - Pro forfeits that he despises actually believable sources like BBC
- 5 - Pro forfeits that the Libyan Civil War was more lethal and violent than the revolutions in Egypt or Tunisia
- 6 - Pro forfeits that Gaddafi suppressed many civil rights
- 7 - Pro forfeits that only a small, small, small number of Libyan rebels had any connection to Al-Qaeda contrary to his other claim that they are almost all related to Al-Qaeda
- 8 - Pro forfeits that the grand rally supporting Gaddafi was only in Tripoli, the capital city, and it was probable that Gaddafi forced everyone to rally for him

But back to the actual resolution,
- 9 - Pro forfeits that NATO froze the bank accounts of Libya's elite to prevent them from buying weapons to use on protesters or civilians
- 10 - Pro forfeits that NATO enforced a no fly zone to prevent the civilians from aerial bombardment by Gaddafi's regime
- 11 - Pro forfeits that NATO coordinated with rebels through drone warfare to prevent civilians from unnecessary harm
- 12 - Pro forfeits that NATO provided funding to the rebels to fight Gaddafi's oppressive rule over his own people
- 13 - Pro forfeits that NATO refrained from deploying ground troops to prevent civilians from dying
- 14 - Pro forfeits that NATO proposed economic sanctions against Libya to protest Gaddafi's extreme use of force against its own people and the rebels

This is why I believe that NATO inervened on behalf of protecting the rebels and civilians in the Libyan Civil War from Gaddafi.

I thank the Pro for a good debate and the voters for reading :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Islam_Forever 5 years ago
Islam_Forever
austinoclavanski123imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used conspiracy theories as if they were fact.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
austinoclavanski123imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made unsuppported claims and dropped many arguments. Con's presented a better case than Pro with more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
austinoclavanski123imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. To be honest, I'm kind of getting bored with these fake accounts. This person went too over the top. A picture of just the hammer and sickle would have sufficed, but the caption, "COMMUNISM FOR OUR FUTURE!" just corroborates the cheap fakeness of the account. A decent satire I can appreciate, but not some blatantly fake one that's not funny. It's like a black woman's account, "Shaniqua Jones" with a picture of fried chicken and Tyler Perry. Boring...
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
austinoclavanski123imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, just wow. Pro made a bunch of unsupported claims in contrary to Con's reliable sources. Furthermore, a lot of Pro's statements were of his own opinion. I also believe Con made much more superior and logical arguments.
Vote Placed by Fusionized 5 years ago
Fusionized
austinoclavanski123imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a decisive victory for Con. He pointed out the unsubstantiated assertions of Pro (and those substantiated through unreliable sources) and provided a case on his own, backed up by much more reliable sources. Pro argued from emotion and used few logical or empirical arguments. Pro also had various noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes throughout (not to mention caps).