Originally posted by inimalistIt 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.
but then, why does the violence against the Libyan people bother you in the first place?
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
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
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.
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 [b]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. [vulgar wanking gesture] [/B]
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 truejediNo leader will say it publicly, but the presence of oil will decide whether direct intervention takes place.
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.
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?
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.
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 Lesson the U.S. Is Teaching the World in LibyaIn all the discussion about the current U.S. bombing of Libya, something important has gone almost unnoticed—the lesson the United States is teaching the government of every country on earth. That lesson is: no matter what, no matter the inducements or pressure, never ever give up chemical weapons or a nuclear weapons program. Doing so will not ensure that the U.S. does not attack you—on the contrary, it will make it much more likely.
The U.S. already delivered this lesson very powerfully in 2003 by attacking Iraq, a country which had no biological or chemical weapons or nuclear weapons program after 1991, twelve years earlier. Moreover, according to the CIA's 2004 WMD report, Saddam Hussein had begged the Clinton administration for better relations, promising that it would be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.” In fact, Iraq said that if it had a security relationship with the U.S., it would be inclined to permanently discard even the ambition for WMD.
In Libya's case, Moammar Gaddafi announced in December, 2003 that it was renouncing all WMD—Libya possessed chemical weapons, ballistic missiles and a nuclear weapons program—and inviting international inspectors to certify its compliance. The U.S. declared that this "demonstrates that, in a world of strong nonproliferation norms, it is never too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state," and that Libya would be "amply rewarded." From the perspective of many governments, Libya is now receiving its reward, in the form of hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and the likely downfall of the regime that agreed to disarm.
Every government on earth has different factions with different views of the best strategy to deal with the world, factions that constantly battle each other for supremacy. Whether or not Iran has an active nuclear weapons program (it's still the official position of the U.S. intelligence community that it does not) we can be sure the Iranian faction that wants nuclear weapons has been tremendously strengthened by the attack on Libya. And the faction that believes Iran would be safer without nuclear weapons is much weaker, and in fact is probably being ridiculed for its embarrassing naiveté.
Something similar is going on inside the North Korean government. Anyone within the regime who's been pressing for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons is now in a much worse position.
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.