Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anyone think threatening Gadhafi with "dire consequences" makes the G8 look anything less than pathetic? It might not be our fight, but what is the point of threatening him at all if we aren't going to do anything?

This is like Obama telling him that "Gadhafi must step down." And then doing nothing to help that happen. Either shut your mouth, or back up your talk, but this makes us look really weak, in my humble opinion. As many people are dying in Libya as died in Japan, and we have the power to stop this one.

Is a tough issue: I agree its not the US's war, but the world is seriously sitting back and letting another genocide happen while we wring or hands.
Thoughts?

It doesn't make us look weak because our reason for not jumping into Libya is for political reasons. It does, however, make us look like hypocrites.

It was Obama's speech at Cairo that told the Arab world to "seek democracy" and basically be more like us. I think they listened. They are now responding, and being systemically crushed. In Iran, they were crushed, in Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Saudia Arabia, they are being crushed.

People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

t8HWgzZjot4

Well looks like the UN, the west and all are going to keep on waffling whilst Gadaffi takes back the country. Basically do nothing to help, and let the rebels get slaughtered.

Sad, very sad.

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

Unless a country's military supports the revolution. Happened all over Eastern Europe in 1989.

why is hillary clinton supporting democratic reform in egypt? seems like a double standard.

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.
lol, that's what people told fidel castro...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42124388/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Well good. Do you think it's too late?

Originally posted by truejedi
People can't rise up against modern governments, because the weapons are too advanced. A modern civil war in the U.S. would be over in just a few days i think.

If a modern "American Civil War" occured, the technology on each side would be almost even as it was then. I do not think that would mean that you are wrong, though, because the conflict could still end in a few days, but that's unlikely.

so, now that there is no fly zone, does this mean the UN will be forced to act as Ghadaffi's ground and sea forces continue to slaughter civilians? the artillery and tanks are doing most of the carnage, not the air force, so the no fly zone isn't likely to have any much of an effect on the conflict or death, and the same justifications for a no fly zone almost necessitate further military intervention to stop Ghaddafi's ground troops. I mean, what is the difference between killing civilians from the air or killing them with artillery? If we think it is serious enough to stop one, we look like hypocrites if we don't stop the other.

Further, we are going to start an international military campaign in Libya and stay entirely neutral on the essential invasion of Bahrain by Saudi and UAE troops? So, in Libya, a popular uprising and government violence makes Ghaddafi an illigitimate ruler, but the same acts in Bahrain are fine, because the ruler is legitimate?

oh, and Greenwald on how Obama's commitment to the no-fly zone might fundamentally change the nature of how America goes to war:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

he made the following statement recently that I just want to associate myself with:



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/16/various_matters/index.html

from STRATFOR:

A bit of hypocracy going on here when you think about it. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are basically doing a similar thing (but on a lower scale for now) to their MAJORITY protestors (shiites), no action is going to be taken there because these countries are considered "friends".

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Well looks like the UN, the west and all are going to keep on waffling whilst Gadaffi takes back the country. Basically do nothing to help, and let the rebels get slaughtered.

Sad, very sad.

The US can't get involved first without the world phagging out over it.

^Basically. The moment the US gets involved and wins the war for a side is the moment that regime becomes plagued by constant terrorists and sectarian violence.

I am flamboyant.

http://beyondanomie.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/100915_qadaffi_slide1.jpg?w=640&h=354

I will start talks with the rebels once the drugs have worn off.

hmmm, so now do we attack despite the ceasefire? And I agree: The UN is kinda committing itself to intervene not only in Libya, but in Tunisia, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen as well. Same circumstance, only there they have completely unarmed protestors.

the UN doesn't have an army

Originally posted by inimalist
the UN doesn't have an army

Yup, just 100 thousand "peacekeepers".

Originally posted by inimalist
the UN doesn't have an army Don't tell them that, it'd really hurt their feelings.

a peculiar thing to say. They don't have an army, but they do have the backing of the more powerful nations of the world.

Originally posted by truejedi
a peculiar thing to say. They don't have an army, but they do have the backing of the more powerful nations of the world.
And that's the reason the UN is basically only able to police small, weak nations, and even then only poorly.

IIRC China, Brazil, America, and India alone provide more than half of the UNSC's Peacekeeping funds and manpower.

Edit: Nvm. Just checked, turns out I got India right but the others aren't even in the top 10 of troop contributions lol.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yup, just 100 thousand "peacekeepers".

they have peacekeepers in a position to enforce a no fly zone?

Originally posted by truejedi
a peculiar thing to say. They don't have an army, but they do have the backing of the more powerful nations of the world.

The US is involved in 2 wars, NATO in afghanistan, Russia and China will not be involved.

As a Canadian, I don't like that my tax dollars go to killing people in Afghanistan. I certainly don't want them to spend more of them on killing more people.

lbyXyG2DYOE

The even bigger problem is this:

If Ghaddafi is using military technology to kill civilians, the UN will pass a security resolution, requiring its member states to neutralize that military technology.
Since Ghaddafi used planes, we are institution a no fly zone. However, Ghaddafi also has artillery and tank divisions, and heavily fortified positions throughout the country. The same logic that justifies the use of force against planes, justifies the use of force against other things standing in the way of the Rebels from seizing power.
There is reasonable concern that throwing our military support behind the Libyan resistance will involve NATO forces in another war against a predominantly muslim population. At the very least, images of American and European planes bombing Tripoli's air defenes are going to be a PR nightmare.

/rant, maybe it was pecuilar, idk, I'm not happy with the decision...

Just couldn't' leave alone, could we?

ra6rhSSJo9Y

Originally posted by inimalist

There is reasonable concern that throwing our military support behind the Libyan resistance will involve NATO forces in another war against a predominantly muslim population. At the very least, images of American and European planes bombing Tripoli's air defenes are going to be a PR nightmare.

/rant, maybe it was pecuilar, idk, I'm not happy with the decision...
I think this is different though from Iraq and Afghanistan. In neither of those countries was there a strong opposition to the government, nor a major call for foreign intervention as there is here.

?

The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan

and Iraq had people calling for the ousting of Saddam since the first Gulf war

iirc, both nations had polls suggesting their people actually supported the American invasion, if only at first.

Am I the only one that thinks it would have been best for Obama to force Congress to vote on intervention? Not just morally but practically too. He gets the political capital of being able to point out that he didn't do what Bush did and becomes harder to blame either way.

congress did vote on the iraq war actually.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

a number of people have argued that there is a difference between voting on the right to give the president the power to engage someone militarily and voting on the war itself. idk

Originally posted by inimalist
?

The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan

and Iraq had people calling for the ousting of Saddam since the first Gulf war

iirc, both nations had polls suggesting their people actually supported the American invasion, if only at first.
Were either of those 'strong' though?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Were either of those 'strong' though?

well, in Afghanistan they controlled the norther mountain regions that the Taliban had never been able to take during the decades of civil war, so yes.

In Iraq, various groups had at times challanged Saddam, the closest they had come being when they had some major generals in the army willing to turn on him, but Saddam always won out and brutally destroyed the people who resisted. It would be strikingly similar to what we see in Libya if Ghaddafi wins out, though probably on a smaller scale.

Remember, humanitarian assistance for the people of Iraq was a selling point of the Iraq war, same as in Libya

There is also the question of, what happens if we support the rebels, and then their society breaks along racial or tribal grounds in the aftermath?

black africans have already claimed they are being targeted by the rebels as potential mercenaries, and Al Jazeera has shown their homes and places of work attacked. Do we want to be known as the people who helped support ethnic violence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

Apparently France has "fired the first shot" of the UN intervention effort, interestingly enough it doesn't say anything about an aircraft, which leads me to believe the target was a ground vehicle.

Could they be employing the "no drive zone" concept already?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

Apparently France has "fired the first shot" of the UN intervention effort, interestingly enough it doesn't say anything about an aircraft, which leads me to believe the target was a ground vehicle.

Could they be employing the "no drive zone" concept already?

The first stage in making a no-fly zone is to destroy anti-aircraft weapons so that friendly fighters can operate safely.

Man, this whole thing could be a great opportunity for America to get its prestige back. If we play our cards right, we can go back to looking like the BAMF's we're supposed to be.

Qaddafy should have been dealt with a long time ago.. Hopefully Obama will get the job done

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Qaddafy should have been dealt with a long time ago.. Hopefully Obama will get the job done

didn't they say the same about Saddam?

Originally posted by inimalist
didn't they say the same about Saddam?

i believe so, but don't take my word for it though

-nUrxp74Hgg

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
i believe so, but don't take my word for it though

they did

and look how well thats turned out

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Man, this whole thing could be a great opportunity for America to get its prestige back. If we play our cards right, we can go back to looking like the BAMF's we're supposed to be.
Agreed. And then ride that wave for 20 or so years like we did after World War Two.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Qaddafy should have been dealt with a long time ago.. Hopefully Obama will get the job done

Obama is useless, a fence sitter.

Looks like the French are taking the lead apparently bombing some military vehicles.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Obama is useless, a fence sitter.

Looks like the French are taking the lead apparently bombing some military vehicles.

The US has been targeting Gadaffi's forces with cruise missiles since this morning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The US has been targeting Gadaffi's forces with cruise missiles since this morning.

Ah great, the more the merrier.

America. **** yeah.

Is there opposition on sending NATO troops on to Libyan soil?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Is there opposition on sending NATO troops on to Libyan soil?

I'm opposed to it, if thats what you mean

but, yes, there are American politicians who aren't even interested in the no fly zone (which is apparently just a cover to attack Gadaffi's forces anyways) and Germany was even skeptical about the no fly zone.

also, there are secretary of defence gates' remarks about anyone wanting to get into another land war in asia or africa needing their head checked

unfortunatly, libya has oil and isn't an american ally, so we are going to bomb their country and kill their people, while the saudis murder civilians in a foreign nation with our tacit compliance

HQTKFBG30Ag

president sarkozi: "By killing its own people regieme has lost all legitimacy"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm opposed to it, if thats what you mean

but, yes, there are American politicians who aren't even interested in the no fly zone (which is apparently just a cover to attack Gadaffi's forces anyways) and Germany was even skeptical about the no fly zone.

also, there are secretary of defence gates' remarks about anyone wanting to get into another land war in asia or africa needing their head checked

unfortunatly, libya has oil and isn't an american ally, so we are going to bomb their country and kill their people, while the saudis murder civilians in a foreign nation with our tacit compliance Hey, we need oil. If the West can't get their oil from ethical places like Saudi Arabia and Libya, they may have to turn to unethical places like Alberta.

This whole thing is bullshit. The US needs to quit sticking it's dick into other countries asses.

US just wants Libya for the oil, even though they barely use any of it. Yup its once again, bullshit. I love how the oil thing goes on forever but they stopped looking for Bin Laden.

Originally posted by The Nuul
US just wants Libya for the oil, even though they barely use any of it. Yup its once again, bullshit. I love how the oil thing goes on forever but they stopped looking for Bin Laden.

Very odd statement given that it was a spokesperson for the Libyan regime who dedicated an entire press conference today about saying how they want the oil companies in and working again asap (because they need the money)

So if there's anyone guilty of wanting the oil resources exploited then blame them 1st.

Originally posted by jaden101
Very odd statement given that it was a spokesperson for the Libyan regime who dedicated an entire press conference today

I'm not surprised the regieme is willing to co-operate with western demands at this point.

My point about the oil was more that it seems to be one of the driving differences between how the Americans are dealing with the Libyan situation versus the one in Bahrain, though of course, there is always the issue of Iran.

However, like I highlighted in the video I posted above, Sarkozy says killing its own civilians delegitimized the libyan regieme, which the Bahraini state did. Further, the illegitimate leader of Bahrain called in foreign forces to put down the people of Bahrain, making it a foreign invasion enacted on the Bahraini people.

I can't help but think the geo-politics of oil reserves are behind this to some extent.

Well, of course they are. And they should be. Taking out Ghadaffi is a brilliant move on the US, for more than just moral reasons.

that arguement is identical to the one made for taking down saddam

Originally posted by inimalist
that arguement is identical to the one made for taking down saddam
But Canada and France are involved this time.

well, the UN said it was ok

Originally posted by inimalist
well, the UN said it was ok

Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land". The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land". The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .

My point was more about how Canada backed out of Iraq by deferring to the UN. Sort of like, "well, what they say goes, the UN is clearly the best moral authority on the planet".

Thats a really weird point though. Given it is the constitution says Congress needs to vote on war, it would be interesting to see someone break down which takes precedence?

Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?

Originally posted by inimalist

Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?
Sounds like fertile territory for a dystopic near-future SciFi novel.

Shooting fish in a tub....

Originally posted by inimalist
that arguement is identical to the one made for taking down saddam Taking down Saddam was a brilliant move made by the US. It was what we did after he was dead, that is kicking us in the ass now.

Furthermore, this situation is not similar to that one. The only major similarity is that a dicator is being removed.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Taking down Saddam was a brilliant move made by the US. It was what we did after he was dead, that is kicking us in the ass now.

Furthermore, this situation is not similar to that one. The only major similarity is that a dicator is being removed.

I suppose we disagree on both of those points

If I'm wrong then there is no right!

frankly, I just really don't respect your right to hold a differing opinion than I do, is all

Watch your words, Canadimian, or else we'll put you guys next on our list of countries to bring democracy too!

Why aint I suprised by any of this?

I would like to see them invade Saudi Arabia. oh wait they are friends with the US. so they are ok.

But what about China? lots of people there are executed each year and shit. and God knows how many human rights they break over there.

should we just kick out the members of the UN that never help? China and Russia absolutely ALWAYS abstain, no matter what the peace keeping mission.

Originally posted by Bluesteel
Why aint I suprised by any of this?

I would like to see them invade Saudi Arabia. oh wait they are friends with the US. so they are ok.

But what about China? lots of people there are executed each year and shit. and God knows how many human rights they break over there. Can't invade China, that's where all our stuff comes from.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But Canada and France are involved this time.
They want their share of liquid gold.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not surprised the regieme is willing to co-operate with western demands at this point.

My point about the oil was more that it seems to be one of the driving differences between how the Americans are dealing with the Libyan situation versus the one in Bahrain, though of course, there is always the issue of Iran.

However, like I highlighted in the video I posted above, Sarkozy says killing its own civilians delegitimized the libyan regieme, which the Bahraini state did. Further, the illegitimate leader of Bahrain called in foreign forces to put down the people of Bahrain, making it a foreign invasion enacted on the Bahraini people.

I can't help but think the geo-politics of oil reserves are behind this to some extent.

So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?

Originally posted by jaden101
So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?

I agree with that sentiment. A country's primary resonsiblity should be to its own people, first and foremost.

The justification for "world policing" is: it provides better prosperity in the long run for the American people. I don't buy that for the most part. Sure, you need to have trade-relations, good foreign relations, and a strong diplomacy arm, but you do not need a world police-arm...for the most part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's an argument that Ron Paul made for why the Iraq war was illegal.

That's weird, I thought he wanted to get out of the UN.

Last I heard he was saying this one is illegal because Congress didn't approve it. I'm starting to think he's no a fan of war.

the infidels must be crushed

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's weird, I thought he wanted to get out of the UN.

Last I heard he was saying this one is illegal because Congress didn't approve it. I'm starting to think he's no a fan of war.

He does but I do not see that as a contradication: he supports the constitutionality "binding" treaties but wants to end some of the treaties...most likely to get out of those obligations, lol. In the case of the Iraq invasion, we violated our constitution by defying the wishes of a super important treaty we made in being part of the UN: we did not have their approval to go to war making our war unconstitutional. However, we voted on it and I believe that that vote would over-ride the unconstitutionality of our agreement with the UN. What is the UN going to do? They did nothing. We didn't even get "sanctioned" by other nations...France whined or something like that.


And, yeah, he doesn't like war because he sees it as a waste of money almost every single time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The justification for "world policing" is: it provides better prosperity in the long run for the American people.

The other justification, that's becoming less popular in the US, is that letting people die is a bad thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He does but I do not see that as a contradication: he supports the constitutionality "binding" treaties but wants to end some of the treaties...most likely to get out of those obligations, lol. In the case of the Iraq invasion, we violated our constitution by defying the wishes of a super important treaty we made in being part of the UN: we did not have their approval to go to war making our war unconstitutional. However, we voted on it and I believe that that vote would over-ride the unconstitutionality of our agreement with the UN. What is the UN going to do? They did nothing. We didn't even get "sanctioned" by other nations...France whined or something like that.

So essentially he'd only accept a UN approved and Congress approved war. Yeah, I can buy that. Personally I'd say that what matters is approval from Congress, though they should be informing themselves that they're going against the UN in certain circumstances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yeah, he doesn't like war because he sees it as a waste of money almost every single time.

Very pragmatic reasoning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The other justification, that's becoming less popular in the US, is that letting people die is a bad thing.

Yeah and I used to argue that point until someone pointed out that absurd logistics of objectively enforcing that "moral." Odd combination: objectively enforcing morals. In other words, we prioritize based on the greatest amount of death preventing (does that make sense?).



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So essentially he'd only accept a UN approved and Congress approved war. Yeah, I can buy that. Personally I'd say that what matters is approval from Congress, though they should be informing themselves that they're going against the UN in certain circumstances.

Yeah, that's my understanding. I agree with the idea that you should first get UN-approval (cause, like, that's the whole (original) point of the UN: to prevent world wars) and then vote on it in congress. If you get a green-light from both, then it is okay to proceed.

But, yeah, I agree: the most important measure is congressional approval.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very pragmatic reasoning.

I like it.


I think we should prioritize our money on saving American lives, not policing the world. We should war only when it becomes necessary to defend our nation, which is what he's stated.

Defending our nation is the "moral" invoked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, though...so go figure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah and I used to argue that point until someone pointed out that absurd logistics of objectively enforcing that "moral." Odd combination: objectively enforcing morals. In other words, we prioritize based on the greatest amount of death preventing (does that make sense?).

Yes that makes sense and I really should have been more specific since I tend to criticize other people from broad statements with obvious flaws in them.

Clearly we can never police the whole world or stop everyone from getting killed without destroying freedom and bankrupting the country. However, as a wealthy, powerful nation the US would be acting immorally to not put some of its resource toward stopping genocide. I can't personally put any numbers on it but I do believe (pretty much axiomatically) that choosing to let people die is not a morally neutral decision.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's my understanding. I agree with the idea that you should first get UN-approval (cause, like, that's the whole (original) point of the UN: to prevent world wars) and then vote on it in congress. If you get a green-light from both, then it is okay to proceed.

But, yeah, I agree: the most important measure is congressional approval.

Hrm, looking at xkcd (since no one here is making the argument and I think it's interesting) the claim based the note about treaties is that by approving membership with the UN that Congress has "preapproved" decision of the security council. I don't really buy that and I can't say I would agree with it if I did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we should prioritize our money on saving American lives, not policing the world. We should war only when it becomes necessary to defend our nation, which is what he's stated.

Defending our nation is the "moral" invoked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, though...so go figure.

As for weighting in favor of American lives, yeah, it's the government of America it has protecting Americans as its primary responsibility.

However Ron Paul seems to advocate for isolationism. To me that is, at best, naieve. The best defense is a good offense. I don't mean we should invade everyone that looks threatening (again obviously) just that proactiveness is important. Not simply militarily but also economically and, yes, morally.

Tempering that proactiveness is important, and I'm sure it's part of the reason that the Constitution requires Congressional approval for war. Looking at America's military history, however, that might not be enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
However, as a wealthy, powerful nation the US would be acting immorally to not put some of its resource toward stopping genocide. I can't personally put any numbers on it but I do believe (pretty much axiomatically) that choosing to let people die is not a morally neutral decision.

Saddam is gassing the Kurds, we must prevent this ethnic violence

=

as a direct result of our intervention, Iraq split along religious lines and there was an unheardof increase in ethnic violence

Libya isn't Rwanda. Its not like there is a UN peacekeeping mission there already that is being told not to continue its mandate

Question: after we stop Ghaddafi, how do we prevent violence against his former supporters? how do we ensure the human rights of the people who fought for him?

because, you know, we apply these things equally, right? thats what universal human right mean? yes? I could be wrong, I heard something about US allies being a precondition....

You're right, we should pull everything out now and let them go on slaughtering each other. After all, violence is perfectly fine as long as you don't bother trying to stop any of it.

Originally posted by jaden101
So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?

we can argue the more abstract side of your point if you want, but frankly, no, the international community should play no military role in the internal conflict of nations, especially before a peacekeeping mission is set up.

The allusion to Saudi Arabia isn't to say, "hey, lets get them too", but to show how morally bankrupt this no fly zone really is. It has absolutly nothing to do with protecting innocent people, and everyhting to do with the West's narrative against Ghadaffi, the fact he isn't a Western stooge and his oil supplies.

ffs, America wont even say a bad word about the saudis, yet we have a moral obligation to protect the libyans.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You're right, we should pull everything out now and let them go on slaughtering each other. After all, violence is perfectly fine as long as you don't bother trying to stop any of it.

violence is prefectly fine, then, if we are the ones perpetrating it under a UN binding resolution?

Sure, in the same manner that I'm legally justified in shooting someone on sight, without giving them any kind of warning, if I see them in the process of performing rape or a kidnapping.

Woahhh! I'm glad you brought that to our attention. No one in this thread realized that, nor was that brought up like, three pages ago. ermm

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, in the same manner that I'm legally justified in shooting someone on sight, without giving them any kind of warning, if I see them in the process of performing rape or a kidnapping.

you can hardly claim you are a humanitarian if you are also deliberately ignoring you buddy raping the same woman

If I don't accept that the moral stances we make as a nation are only a cherade and need not be maintained if it serves our interest, I'm out of touch with reality?

No, you're out of touch with reality if that notion bothers you.

how far would you extend that, though. would you say it is ok to violate the voting rights or expression rights of a group of people, simply because we have to accept some degree of hypocrisy?

I don't see how that position doesn't just excuse any evil that is inconvienent. Its like ignoring evidence

Originally posted by inimalist
how far would you extend that, though. would you say it is ok to violate the voting rights or expression rights of a group of people, simply because we have to accept some degree of hypocrisy?

As long as it doesn't affect me. -shrug-



Well, that depends on what plane this is being discussed on, wouldn't it? Not to get all philosophical in this *****, but, what is "evil"?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
As long as it doesn't affect me. -shrug-

but then, why does the violence against the Libyan people bother you in the first place?

Originally posted by inimalist
but then, why does the violence against the Libyan people bother you in the first place? It doesn't. I could care less if Libyans are being killed, to be honest. People die every day, all day, across the world. There's no stopping that. Thing with Libya is that I believe that the US has something to gain by intervening in the conflict. Killing a tyrant in the process is just icing on the cake.

Originally posted by inimalist
Saddam is gassing the Kurds, we must prevent this ethnic violence

=

as a direct result of our intervention, Iraq split along religious lines and there was an unheardof increase in ethnic violence

Libya isn't Rwanda. Its not like there is a UN peacekeeping mission there already that is being told not to continue its mandate

This seems like the perfect solution fallacy (unless you're suggesting that gassing the Kurd was okay). I would say that it was the manner of our intervention caused the split and increased violence not simply that we chose to care.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would say that it was the manner of our intervention caused the split and increased violence not simply that we chose to care.

I said that earlier. You owe me $4.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This seems like the perfect solution fallacy (unless you're suggesting that gassing the Kurd was okay). I would say that it was the manner of our intervention caused the split and increased violence not simply that we chose to care.

I hardly think it is a fallacy to point out that we can in no way control how this conflict plays out, even if the people we want to win do.

There have been reports already about racial violence, and Libya is a complex tribal society where people are going to be vying for power in the vaccum created by Ghaddafi being ousted.

Originally posted by inimalist
I hardly think it is a fallacy to point out that we can in no way control how this conflict plays out, even if the people we want to win do.

But to imply that we shouldn't do anything because we can't be sure it will all turn out great is a fallacy.

Originally posted by inimalist
There have been reports already about racial violence, and Libya is a complex tribal society where people are going to be vying for power in the vaccum created by Ghaddafi being ousted.

Yes and it's going to be a very serious problem if Ghaddafi is removed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, though, it mean someone really has to start putting work into figuring out how to prevent another disaster.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But to imply that we shouldn't do anything because we can't be sure it will all turn out great is a fallacy.

I've never said "nothing"

there has to be a middle ground between doing something and military action. If there isn't, maybe we shouldn't be doing anything, not because "we can't know", but for numerous other reasons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes and it's going to be a very serious problem if Ghaddafi is removed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, though, it mean someone really has to start putting work into figuring out how to prevent another disaster.

I guess I don't see this as such a benevelant act by the international community as you do. I hardly think the West is interested in the post-Ghaddafi Libyan state, so long as it is in line with their geo-political interests. Any leader the west sets up is going to be a Hamid Karazai or Nouri al Malaki

xU33qHa-XZE

strangely enough, now that Qatar is involved in the no-fly zone, the GCC now has troops in Libya AND Bahrain!!!

also, the admirial here flat out admits that this is not a "no-fly zone" and they will attack Ghaddafi's ground forces if they advance on the rebels.

tmXSTlpEol8

astoundingly, UAE specifically has troops in both Libya and Bahrain....

Originally posted by inimalist
we can argue the more abstract side of your point if you want, but frankly, no, the international community should play no military role in the internal conflict of nations, especially before a peacekeeping mission is set up.

The allusion to Saudi Arabia isn't to say, "hey, lets get them too", but to show how morally bankrupt this no fly zone really is. It has absolutly nothing to do with protecting innocent people, and everyhting to do with the West's narrative against Ghadaffi, the fact he isn't a Western stooge and his oil supplies.

ffs, America wont even say a bad word about the saudis, yet we have a moral obligation to protect the libyans.

Given the sheer level of violence being perpetrated it's hard to see how a peace keeping force would be able to do anything at all. It would end up being as ineffectual and highly criticised as it was in Rwanda. They have a hard enough task "peace keeping" in areas that don't have level of sophisticated weaponry that Ghadaffi's army has (namely fighter jets and tanks). Places such as Chad, Sierra Leone and previously in places such as Somalia, Liberia etc.

Besides, you're arguing that it isn't a stooge of the US but the US is still the 6th biggest importer of Libyan oil which is equivalent to some $6b a year.

Before the current crisis both UN and US sanctions had been lifted and US companies such as Exxon Mobil has already established drilling and refining operations in Libya.


Let me ask you one question though...What would your opinion be of the US and UN if they allowed Ghadaffi to go through with his threat of once his forces reached Benghazi that his troops would go into every single house and kill everyone and anyone who resisted?...Meaning genocide on a massive scale...And the western world was to turn around and say "Nothing to do with us...Not our problem"...And then after the dust has settled, US and UK oil companies were to go back in restart what they were doing before it all kicked off...Bear in mind that the one of the primary reasons for the people of Libya starting their protests was that virtually none of the oil revenue was making its way down to the people in any form.

see, the fact that we stood by in Rwanda and let it happen, the equivalent of 100 9/11's in a row.... means I think we need to stop it from happening again. ESPECIALLY since we supply these dictators with the means to kill the people. Like in Yemen. We have bought those weapons that they are sniping protestors with.

Originally posted by truejedi
see, the fact that we stood by in Rwanda and let it happen, the equivalent of 100 9/11's in a row.... means I think we need to stop it from happening again. ESPECIALLY since we supply these dictators with the means to kill the people. Like in Yemen. We have bought those weapons that they are sniping protestors with. No leader will say it publicly, but the presence of oil will decide whether direct intervention takes place.


Pragmatic cynicism in all its selfish glory. I love it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No leader will say it publicly, but the presence of oil will decide whether direct intervention takes place.


Pragmatic cynicism in all its selfish glory. I love it.

Like in the former Yugoslavia?

Or a hundred other countries where there has been military intervention of different scales that had absolutely nothing to do with oil.

Originally posted by jaden101
Like in the former Yugoslavia?

Or a hundred other countries where there has been military intervention of different scales that had absolutely nothing to do with oil.

you don't think American oil policy is playing even the slightest role in why they are initiating military action against Libya but remaining quiet about the same type of state violence in Bahrain and Yemen?

the problem in Bahrain and Yemen is not oil, its that we give those countries hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fight terrorism. They are supposed to be our allies. So to take THEM out is different than taking out Ghadafi.

Originally posted by jaden101
Like in the former Yugoslavia?

Or a hundred other countries where there has been military intervention of different scales that had absolutely nothing to do with oil. Apologies. I was synonymizing "oil" with "gain".

Originally posted by jaden101
Given the sheer level of violence being perpetrated it's hard to see how a peace keeping force would be able to do anything at all. It would end up being as ineffectual and highly criticised as it was in Rwanda. They have a hard enough task "peace keeping" in areas that don't have level of sophisticated weaponry that Ghadaffi's army has (namely fighter jets and tanks). Places such as Chad, Sierra Leone and previously in places such as Somalia, Liberia etc.

I agree with you entirely, peacekeeping has proven to be a failure entirely, for the exact same reasons why the west is willing to interviene in Libya but wouldn't in Egypt, Bharain or Yemen.

In Rwanda, Western nations saw no geo-political gain in opposing the genocide, and therefore wouldn't risk the loss of political capital by using their soldiers to enforce humanitarian goals.

Same deal here. The only reason we see Ghaddafi targeted is because he is not in line with Western hegemony, and there are geo-political gains that can be made by bringing him down.

But no, I agree, peacekeepers would be useless here, aren't deployed into hot battlegrounds like this normally anyways afaik, and are generally problematic for the same reasons the member states who provide the troops are.

However, nothing about this no-fly zone is a peacekeeping operation. It is an offensive military strike against the Libyan forces.

Originally posted by jaden101
Besides, you're arguing that it isn't a stooge of the US but the US is still the 6th biggest importer of Libyan oil which is equivalent to some $6b a year.

Before the current crisis both UN and US sanctions had been lifted and US companies such as Exxon Mobil has already established drilling and refining operations in Libya.

You are right, I may have overstated the oil issue. I don't think oil companies or reserves were a major factor in the no-fly zone, nor do I think they were a big deal in Iraq either tbh.

However, if you think Ghaddafi supports western geo-political goals in anything close to the way Mubarak, or the Saudi and Bahraini states do, I'd disagree entirely. Ghaddafi represents the same anti-western/anti-colonial revolutionary movement that the leaders of Zimbabwe still ride to maintain power.

but no, you are totally right. Oil companies are rich enough to get the oil from wherever it may lie, regardless of who that makes us bedfellows of.

(Yougoslovia I don't know much about, but I'd put money on it having some "cold-war-esque" geo-political vibe, no? or, the most intense day of bombing in Yougoslavia occured on the same day Clinton gave testimony on Lewinsky... could be humanitarianism as a distraction)

Originally posted by jaden101
Let me ask you one question though...What would your opinion be of the US and UN if they allowed Ghadaffi to go through with his threat of once his forces reached Benghazi that his troops would go into every single house and kill everyone and anyone who resisted?...Meaning genocide on a massive scale...And the western world was to turn around and say "Nothing to do with us...Not our problem"...And then after the dust has settled, US and UK oil companies were to go back in restart what they were doing before it all kicked off...Bear in mind that the one of the primary reasons for the people of Libya starting their protests was that virtually none of the oil revenue was making its way down to the people in any form.

ok, well, the first obvious rebuttal is, if you accept the American military has the moral obligation to intervene when civilians are being killed by the government, do you hold this to be absolute? Like, would you extend this to Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Burma, North Korea, Iran and China? If so, cool, we disagree on the point, but its consistent. If not, what makes Libyan lives so special? If its that they are already fighting back, the moral consequence of that is that we will only help those least in need, as logic could dictate those who are repressed to the point where they can't fight at all need our help more than those already fighting. You could say helping them is more likely to produce a victory, and I give you that, all I'm saying is that this "humanitarian calculus" is not that clear.

I'd also challange the premise of this point. In terms of what is motivating the world's actions, I see humanitarian aide as a window dressing, the same type of thing that my government used to sell the war in Afghanistan, the same we saw for Iraq, the same that has been used in almost every war in history. But as I've tried to show, and I think a fact like the UAE having troops in both the Libyan and Bahraini international coalitions (the first supporting civilian protestors, the latter attacking the hospitals that treated them) prooves, the international community is acting on an opportunity presented to them by the people of Libya to bring the Libyan state in line with Western hegemonic power. Oddly enough, the exact thing that everyone was afraid the Muslim Brotherhood was going to do in Egypt.

Further, by supporting the rebels, we have essentially decided that their lives are more valuable than are those of Ghaddafi's forces. The people we have already killed are seen as justifiable in some "humanitarian" form? We can talk pragmatics, and about greater suffering through action and inaction, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a noted "humanitarian" who supports military force.

Finally, as much as Sym might want to call it a logical fallacy, it is worth noting that there is no way to ensure that this revolution ends in less bloodshed with our assistance as without. I agree, it will probably save people in Banghazi over the next couple of days, but what if, and of course if (though this would not be unheard of or even uncommon historically), the society breaks along different tribal and ethnic lines? Even if the violence ends, how involved in the new government are we going to be? are we deciding to build another nation? Like, the cliche in Iraq was "you break it, you bought it", by starting this bombing campaign here, the west has "bought" the Libyan revolution. As far as we are concerned, it better work out.

So, like, sure, if you had some mechanism of stoping conflict that was without flaw, I'd agree, use it, in Libya and everywhere where at least minimum human freedom is not recognized. Do I support the geo-political manuvering of western nations to force regieme change in another Muslim country? **** no.

n2HLKemsOP4

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It doesn't. I could care less if Libyans are being killed, to be honest. People die every day, all day, across the world. There's no stopping that. Thing with Libya is that I believe that the US has something to gain by intervening in the conflict. Killing a tyrant in the process is just icing on the cake.

those colours don't run...

I can respect that

Originally posted by truejedi
see, the fact that we stood by in Rwanda and let it happen, the equivalent of 100 9/11's in a row.... means I think we need to stop it from happening again. ESPECIALLY since we supply these dictators with the means to kill the people. Like in Yemen. We have bought those weapons that they are sniping protestors with.

The situation is a litte different than the one in Rwanda. UN peacekeepers had negotiated a cease fire in Rwanda before going in to maintain the peace so the sides could come to a resolution between eachother. As society broke on tribal lines and the civilian population was killed, the West (including Kofi Anan with the UN) refused to let the peacekeepers already there make any action to pre-empt the genocide or defend the civilians. The Canadian General, Romeo Dalaire, was court marshelled when he returned to Canada, because he had gone against orders and refused to just pull out without helping anyone.

Libya is a hot conflict zone with no established cease fire that the west has entered into militarily to see an "illegitimate" leader removed from power by supporting a rebel army with, at least at this point, air support and cruise missiles. In fact, within the first day of the conflict, the West had already expanded the rules of engagement under the UN resolution that many Arab states that had endorsed the resolution started expressing grievances.

Originally posted by inimalist
how far would you extend that, though. would you say it is ok to violate the voting rights or expression rights of a group of people, simply because we have to accept some degree of hypocrisy?

Funny you should mention that: there's a documentary that clearly shows how easy it is to manipulate the voting systems and alludes to the fact that MANY elections in the US have been rigged.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how that position doesn't just excuse any evil that is inconvienent. Its like ignoring evidence

Our actions as a country are highly hypocritical, actually. I would prefer inaction in other countries WITH more action in our own then to have unfair "policing" and hypocrisy as our policies.

the article goes on to talk about how American policy is determined to see states disarm so that America might be better able to enforce its hegemony. Pretty good.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003470.html

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/lind_libya_war/index.html

here it is important to remember the Wikileaks cables that show American diplomats bribing weaker nations for support at the UN.

another escalation in the terms of the mandate of the UN resolution.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/21/libya_more_coalition_airstrikes/index.html

yZTFVFqFGVg

-no clear definition of "success" in Libya?

-no timetable for mission end?

-should NATO take over officially?

OY-_JsNrxiM

I don't like Farrakhan, but I agree with him on this one.

Originally posted by inimalist
another escalation in the terms of the mandate of the UN resolution.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/21/libya_more_coalition_airstrikes/index.html

I don't think it's really an escalation. The resolution was much broader than the establishment of the no-fly zone. It's just that the proposal started there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think it's really an escalation. The resolution was much broader than the establishment of the no-fly zone. It's just that the proposal started there.

The resolution makes provisions from protecting civilians (which in itself has been interpreted much more broadly than even those who agreed to a no-fly zone invisioned). Destroying the command and control structure of the Libyan military is an extreme escalation of this, and only tangentally related to protecting civilians.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land". The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .

found this, don't know how accurate it is, best I've seen, though Salon takes a "anti-war" stance on Libya:

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/congress_war_powers_the_president

sorry for the post storm, I hope this stuff is relevant for those interested. needless to say, this is something that I see as important

I've added emphasis on this last one:



Needless to say, military engagements -- especially those involving high-tech weapons like $1 million-a-pop Tomahawk cruise missiles -- become very expensive very quickly.

That fact makes it all the more striking that the Obama administration launched the bombing raids without consulting Congress. For comparison's sake, the Republican-led House has spent recent weeks arguing over such issues as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ($422 million in annual federal funding) and Planned Parenthood (roughly $325 million in annual federal funding).

consistency

America loses funding for public news and pregnancy support, Libyan people die, budget balanced!

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/libya_cost/index.html

Originally posted by inimalist
The resolution makes provisions from protecting civilians (which in itself has been interpreted much more broadly than even those who agreed to a no-fly zone invisioned). Destroying the command and control structure of the Libyan military is an extreme escalation of this, and only tangentally related to protecting civilians.

My point is that the UN resolution was never about a no-fly zone. Some people said "hey let's make a no-fly zone" and the UN said "nah, lets go all in" and most of the world missed what they said.

I wouldn't call attacking C&C an escalation either, that's how you fight an army. The guys with the guns are much more dangerous when they know who to shoot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point is that the UN resolution was never about a no-fly zone. Some people said "hey let's make a no-fly zone" and the UN said "nah, lets go all in" and most of the world missed what they said.

I wouldn't call attacking C&C an escalation either, that's how you fight an army. The guys with the guns are much more dangerous when they know who to shoot.

oh, cool, fair enough, I would agree with you entirely, the UN has mandated NATO forces as air support for the rebel army

however, in a "no fly zone" specifically, not in a UN mandated attack against the Libyan forces, the C&C structure, including things like Ghadaffi's royal palace, would not be on the target list, nor would advancing ground troops. EDIT: I'm even quoting the American Vice Admiral on this, who explicitly stated that the attack against Ghaddafi's ground forces was not an aspect of the no fly zone, but of a greater implementation of "civilian safety". Will he then bomb the advancing rebel troops?

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't think American oil policy is playing even the slightest role in why they are initiating military action against Libya but remaining quiet about the same type of state violence in Bahrain and Yemen?

If it was about oil then they'd simply let Ghadaffi win in the shortest time possible so they could get back to some stability and get their oil companies in and producing again.

I'm saying that the people who say it has nothing to do with protecting innocent civilians are simply wrong. You could argue that this itself has selfish connotations in that the US is only saving civilians to make itself look like it cares but frankly I think that's massively cynical (and I'm one of the most cynical people I know)

As for your second reply. I'll address it as a general whole rather than quoting and responding to separate parts.

We're both clearly speaking about this from a level of ignorance that the UN nation's leaders wont have in terms of the level of violence being perpetrated on the civilian populations of the counties you mention but I think it's a fair assessment to say that the level of violence in Libya by Ghadaffi on his people is clearly massively disproportionate to most of the other countries in the recent Arab uprisings.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to use that as some sort of excuse to ignore the violence being committed in the other countries...Far from it. There has to be a tipping point somewhere...Granted in an ideal situation it would be at a far lesser level than a tyrant using tanks and fighter jets on his own people but unfortunately we don't live in that world. I get as frustrated as you when despite horrific violence being perpetrated, our leaders still insist on using every diplomatic avenue to stop the violence despite it being unsuccessful.

A perfect example in recent years is Sudan. If it were up to me there would've been military intervention years ago to stop the horrific crimes being committed by the government. And I could say the same about loads of countries. But I still stand by the view that just because we can't act everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't act anywhere.

What I don't agree with is that the US needed Ghadaffi out of the way or that military action was needed to bring Libya closer to the west in order to get that oil as that was happening regardless...Some would argue that's even worse...Condoning Ghadaffi's previous stance and actions towards the west (The Lockerbie bombing being an example as some sources would suggest...Whether you believe he had anything to do with it is another matter because the issue is that the western governments do) so long as he's a bit more moderate in order to get what we want from the country. I guess if every western country were to be as morally virtuous as to simply not deal with any morally dubious countries then they'd not only be hypocritical they'd also never do trade with any nation.





I guess if we were to plan for every eventuality then we'd never intervene anywhere but it also begs other moral questions.

Take Iraq for example...If we were to take away all the WMD questions and the entire situation was laid flat out to the western world's public to begin with what would be the reactions of most people to the question of whether or not it's OK to leave Saddam in power despite his massive genocide of Shi'ite people simply because there would be a vacuum which noone else could fill if he was removed and that could "POTENTIALLY" lead to more deaths rather than preventing genocide.


As an aside...It's good to not have a diametrically opposed debate with you for a change.

phhraAK1i2Q

killed as they were retreating.... not that air strikes are the moral high ground in the first place, but ****...

jaden, I'm working on a worthwhile reply.

On youir last point, I tend to think we agree more than not, if only really diverge on like, who is more responsible for the continual violence in gaza or whether or not hamas is as bad as the taliban. I really don't think I've ever been diametrically opposed to you on anything, my memory is poor though...

EDIT: maybe all I'm saying is I've always seen the logic of your points, even if I disagree on technicalities

Originally posted by inimalist
phhraAK1i2Q

killed as they were retreating.... not that air strikes are the moral high ground in the first place, but ****...

Hrm. I find myself more disturbed by my own reaction than what NATO did. It's more than just a feeling of pride. More of an undeserved feeling of personal power. Gadaffi rolled out the strongest arm of his military and we wiped it out like it was nothing.

I have to wonder what it was like for the people in Bengazi. Days of helplessness and then there are some flashes of light and your enemies are dead.

look, like for as much as I am against involvement, its hard to watch these and not be moved. I'll eat my hat if we pull it off of course.

But ya, that must feel like a gift from some higher power, what must have seemed like an invinceable army reduced to smoldering wreckage during the night...

so, how about those X-35s

The way the guy describes it as "like a laser" speaks volumes to how they view the intervention and what it means to them. Both sides are essentially fighting a Cold War era fight, just one side has more tanks and artillery. All of a sudden 21st century airpower shows up.

It's almost like if at height of the Battle of Britain a bunch of F-86 Sabres showed up and swatted the Luftwaffe out of the air, imagine how the Brits would feel.

pretty sure britain would have been happy. And attacked them while they were retreating? Is that a bad thing? I mean, they were retreating back to the city where Ghadaffi keeps shooting protestors. does he really need more armed men in that city?

Originally posted by truejedi
pretty sure britain would have been happy. And attacked them while they were retreating? Is that a bad thing? I mean, they were retreating back to the city where Ghadaffi keeps shooting protestors. does he really need more armed men in that city?

Britain would've been happy???

It was French Rafale fighter/bombers that carried out these attacks. (Who'd have thought the French had it in them eh?)

Originally posted by jaden101
Britain would've been happy???

It was French Rafale fighter/bombers that carried out these attacks. (Who'd have thought the French had it in them eh?)

Heh. I thought the same when I was watching the news and they mentioned the "Coalition" which included France and I was sure I had misheard.

this pretty much sums it up:

*continuing

Wurd.

from STRATFOR:

continued:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12816226

Fortunate that the pilots crashed in rebel held territory.

Also, mechanical failure is apparently what brought it down, which just reinforces the fact that the only way you can take down an F-15 is with a lucky hit or a malfunction.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This has been covered. The UN *never* said it was establishing a no-fly zone, it said it was going to bomb the crap out of people that were a threat to civilians.

maybe that was always the plan internally, but debate in the public, and at least how the Arab leaders had interpreted the intervention, "no-fly zone" was how this was presented.

Even if it isn't an escalation in terms of the strict resolution mandate, it is different from how the mission was presented to the public by politicians and the media. tbh, I don't think anyone was talking about strikes on Ghaddafi's ground forces until after it happened... (I posted the press conference where it was announced, and you can hear the astonishment in some of the reporters)

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe that was always the plan internally, but debate in the public, and at least how the Arab leaders had interpreted the intervention, "no-fly zone" was how this was presented.

Even if it isn't an escalation in terms of the strict resolution mandate, it is different from how the mission was presented to the public by politicians and the media. tbh, I don't think anyone was talking about strikes on Ghaddafi's ground forces until after it happened... (I posted the press conference where it was announced, and you can hear the astonishment in some of the reporters)
Oh there was talk about it, its just no one in any official capacity was advocating it that I can remember.

I remember a week back people talking about a "no drive zone" being the only way we could truly stop the rebels from getting crushed.

Keep posting these STRATFOR articles, inimalist, they're very good.

if you like them, I recommend signing up for their updates, but they do sort of have a "worst case scenario" bias, and a lot of the stuff they claim as fact (Iran involvement in Bahrain protests) is done on pure speculation. I like it, but they are no AJE