The UN and other countries should interfere militarily in Libya.

Point I: The challenge at hand is to is to explain whether the human rights violations being committed in Libya justify. Here is how they justify (and this goes back for years which just shows the severity of the situation): 1-Unlawful Deprivation of Life (1) 2-Torture (2) 3-Restricted Freedom of Religion (3) 4-Limited Freedoms of Speech and Press (4) 5-No Right to Fair Trial (5) Also, you failed to recognize the clearly stated fact that if you did not agree with my statement that people of several various groups were being assaulted that Gaddafi was still liable for attempting to commit genocide. And if you want even more proof he did not just attempt it. Here is some proof of various assaults enacted on innocent civilians. 1-"Libya Violence Escalates as Qaddafi's Son Vows `Rivers of Blood'" (6) 2-"Qaddafi Launching Two New Attacks on Rebels, Libyan Envoy Says"(7) 3-"UK official slams Libya attacks on civilians"(8) "You have not yet provided proof for your assertion that the Libyan leadership is committing genocide, nor have you specified why their human rights violations (which I do not deny they are guilty of) justify a foreign attack on the country (which is what military intervention is by definition)." And if you do not believe that the Libyan government is not committing genocide, then explain to me how they can possibly vow to fight until the last drop of blood, hire mercenaries, and order the actions above to be committed? And what justifies for national military intervention? The heinous crimes committed against innocent people. You can draw a similar analogy on a smaller scale to the incidents of World War II. The UN has prevented many lives from being harmed in the past and they must to do so again with the assistance of other countries. "Why should we not judge potential future actions on the experience we have from similar earlier? " The United States entered Iraq (amongst many other reasons) to fight the fact that Saddam Hussein had repeatedly went against international rights. Why are you judging the fact that that one mission was a failure that others would also seems to be so? You base your argument heavily on the past, and seem to ignore the present situation in Libya. If you may can you please tell me, what should be done about Libya? Should we just let them fight away with intervention and let civil war destroy them more than it ever would the same way it did to several other countries in Africa. You also mentioned the fact that Gaddafi threatened to ally with al-Qaeda if other countries were to intervene on his reign of terror (9). Interestingly enough, he also claimed that his anti-government rebels were with al-Qaeda. Not to mention the fact that his son, his public spokesperson, and he himself repeatedly stated that the entire uprising was caused by none other than al-Qaeda (10)(11)! So you are trying to convince me that Gaddafi is really going to support the people he claims have supported his own enemies? I am sorry, but I find that hard to believe. Gaddafi is probably doing this because he knows that with outside military intervention he is likely to lose. Thus he has decided that he would threaten the West with their biggest enemy in order to scare them away. Judging by his actions and attitude, I would say that this is perfectly probable. You also mentioned the fact that Gaddafi volunteered to step down his rule in exchange for his own safety. In essence, what he was saying was the following "Hey guys, I know I totally killed a bunch of people and made all this crap and lied a bunch of times and maybe I got some mercenaries to do some dirty work when my army wouldn't and yeah I guess I did hurt and kill a lot of people. But hey! I can step down from leadership as long as you let me and my family get away with all our cash". Who does he think he is? He has done wrong like every other leader in the world. No one is going to let him get away with causing a turmoil. Sure, he is offering to step down like so many people wanted. But what do you think that would mean to the millions of people who fought for him to do so, that he was leaving but he was leaving victoriously. They did not just take to the streets to ask him to step down. They did it because they had had enough of him and because he had not fufilled the responsibilities of a leader (12). "I still believe that experience shows that they are better off with an internal rebellion than the kind of destruction outside military force would bring with them. " Better off with an evil ruler who wants to wipe out the entire population? The same ruler who said he would fill the streets with rivers of blood? I strongly disagree with you. These Libyan rebels rejoiced at the no-fly zone (13) and that gives me reason to believe that they need more support. Also, can you please give other reasons besides past incidents that would indicate that a military intervention would bring the people not Gaddafi doom? ********************* Since this is my closing argument I would like to say this is one of the best debates I had. Excellent comptetion! ********************* ______________________________ (1)http://www.state.gov... (2)http://www.spiegel.de... (3)http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca... (4)http://www.ncbuy.com... (5)http://www.libya-watanona.com... (6)http://www.bloomberg.com... (7)http://www.bloomberg.com... (8)http://www.gulf-times.com... (9)http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com... (10)http://www.youtube.com... (11)http://www.youtube.com... (12)http://www.libyafeb17.com... (13)http://articles.latimes.com...