Strange Famous

It seems that today UK forces have taken part in limited attacks on Libya in co-operation with French and American forces.

As a supposed democracy, I wonder what mandate the govt belives they hold to commit British forces to military attacks against another soveriegn state?

Nobody would deny that Gaddafhi is corrupt and sometimes brutal. As the British state see's itself now as the apparent protector of the ordinary people of the Middle East, perhaps we will also use military force to prevent Saudi from committing atrocities against its people?

Or maybe we'll just keep selling them the weapons that they use to do it.

_

After Iraq, after Afghanistan, when will we ever learn our lesson?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Rekna

Genocide

Baraka_Guru

The Canadian PM, too, has given the green light for Canadian forces to shoot upon Libyan forces violating the no-fly zone.

Is this an act of war? Basically.

It's being conducted under a U.N. resolution. Canada (among other nations) has a dark history of what can go wrong under U.N. resolutions.

Sure this can be seen as an aggression against a sovereign state, but the worst-case scenario is far worse. There is no indication that Gadhafi will respond to anything but force right now. It's at least in the best interests of vulnerable civilians for these international forces to be prepared to at least enforce the no-fly zone.

Of course, the no-fly zone business is likely the tip of a very big iceberg.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

I am not trying to say that I support Gaddafhi, or that I think force is always wrong

But surely a democracy requires some kind of mandate to use its military?

This isnt a sudden attack.

I think I just get upset with the hypocrisy... what are war crimes in Libya are basically unreported in Saudi or Pakistan...

If Ethiopia get upset with Somalia and go and kick the shit out of them, no one talks about no fly zones to protect a Muslim govt (which ought to be better than the civil war that was there before) from an airforce of 90's MIGs.

Fair enough, if its Russia doing a bit of regional bullying there is nothing we CAN do... but Ethiopia isnt... its just there's no oil, and no political interest... so the dead there we just mourn rather than try to defend.

_

Libya is not in my mind a simple case of the govt forces killing civilians, but a genuine civil war.

If civilians are being targetted then the best tactic is the one the US used to protect the Iraqi Kurds from Turkey in the last gulf war. Turkey steamed in ready to "secure their borders" and the US dropped in troops between Turkey and the civilians... and as strong as the Turkish army is they arent going to fire on US troops...

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

roachboy

libya is complicated because while there are tribal divisions the fact is that the rebels have relatively light weapons almost entirely from members of the military who've gone over to their side and they are not in the main trained. so it's an assymetrical situation, a massacre in short. on ethical grounds, that isn't acceptable.

except, apparently, sometimes when it is.

why was there no clamor for a no-fly zone over gaza exactly?

i don't get it. i mean, if the arguments about military power being used on civilians is a real argument.

and i kind of support what the international community--whatever that really means---is doing to stop gadhafi.

but still...why was there not a no-fly zone imposed over gaza again?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Strange Famous

why was there no fly zone over Somalia?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

roachboy

strange, isn't it?

let's leave aside the obvious realpolitik matters. they're self evident---there was no compatible action about gaza because the united states under bush 2 would not have allowed it. period.

i wonder the extent to which the consensus follows from a shift in media paradigm that's happened across the coverage of egypt--so something very new that's happened very fast one effect of which has been to open a space that actually treats north africa---and the middle east---as inhabited by human beings with aspirations not that different from those that allegedly animate people to the north.

just a theory.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dlish

the ironic thing is that Qazzafi is calling the attacks unjust.

like it's real justice to slay your own people.

let him have it.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

ObieX

I think the UN was just upset because no one can settle on a way to spell Muammar's name. In the end they just said "fuck it.. send in the war planes!"

I'm just glad the UN is finally doing *something* *somewhere* to protect people from slaughter.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ASU2003

I'm sure there are people in the US gov that wanted to do this in Iran...

I bet this has more to do with Gaddafi and oil than helping armed protestors or stopping a civil war by breaking it up. I bet that UN air power will be used to help the rebels.

dlish

...and then what?

get Bremer in to set up a government? we all know how that worked out in Iraq.

I'd like to see the back of Mu'ammar AlKazzafee, but who's going to know how to govern after 42 years of dictatorship rule?

Saddam or Mu3ammer El Qathafi? which one would you prefer?

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

ObieX

The UN probably realizes its in the best interest of the entire region for these protests and popular uprisings to continue. This is what people have been waiting for and the opportunity can't be allowed to just fade away.

If they didn't act immediately the rebellion would have been put down and the region's peoples would have been discouraged from doing the same thing in their own countries. They need support at their back and that's what they are getting.

Recrimination can wait.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ottopilot

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dc_dux

otto....I saw that all over the right wing blogs yesterday. I would suggest that you can make that comparison when Obama authorizes 100,000+ ground forces into Libya.

As much as you might like to compare the action to Bush's invasion of Iraq, I would suggest a comparison more to Bush I.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

faux news opionistas are all about "obama is a follower not a leader" presumably because he didn't follow the glorious path of cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces--in part because of the results of the glorious path taken by cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces which made it impossible politically and militarily---even if it had been a sane option---which it wasn't. and when the administration does act, it does so in a manner closer to bush 1---and the integrity-optional set on the right tries to use it to vindicate cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces.

it's funny.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

How conveniently they forget that Bush II never did have a UN mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

In this case, I think the mandate and the US action is appropriate.

I dont think it will stop Kaddafi from continuing to attack and slaughter his own people, begging the question...what next?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ottopilot

wow, that bit of hipocracy was fully expected

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Baraka_Guru

Which bit? You mean how people were all against G. W. Bush going in to stop Saddam from gassing his own people but are totally okay with Obama stopping Gaddafi from shooting up his?

Or that they were against Bush invading Iraq based on lies but are okay with Obama's lies?

Or that they were against Bush's decision to heed the calls of dying Iraqis to step in but are okay with Obama's decision to heed the call of Libyans?

Or that they were against unilateral military action but are okay with a U.N. resolution?

So....what hypocrisy are you talking about? This isn't a rhetorical question. It's a request for clarification.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

Wow. If we hadn't been attacked in Pearl Harbor, would we have continued to allow Hitler to kill millions of innocent people? We allowed Stalin and the Soviets to kill many and looked away, because we didn't want to confront.

MURDEROUS regimes must be stopped or the blood lies on all of us. If Khaddaffi is killing his people and Mubarak was killing his and the Iranians theirs and Hussein was his.... then end the regimes. If the UN is truly there to help the people they wouldn't wait till people started rebelling and MILLIONS were killed maimed or homeless. They would see there are serious issues and crimes against humanity done by the leadership and do what they could, up to and including military actions.

What's worse morally, allowing a leader to kill his people and "sanctioning" knowing it only hurts his people more than it will ever hurt that leader, or using force against force.

I am no war monger, I think we made up excuses that would sell the world on Iraq and did so to get to Afghanistan and have ignored the true issues over there. That some of those leaders are far worse than Saddam ever was.

We have the blood of millions of innocents on our hands for allowing those leaders to continue and not do anything exscept continue to buy oil and make that leadership richer than their country will ever be.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Evidently, you are prepared to sacrifice the lives of more young American men and women as a first option.

I am not.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i have to say that i support what the un is doing with gadhafi but it feels strangely to do it. it follows from (a) my visceral support for the revolutionary movement (and i think it's safe to call it that) that's gone furthest in tunisia and egypt--that's still underway, that's still uncertain and feeling its way along--which is linked to what's happening in yemen bahrain, saudi arabia and to a less extent (but still important) in morocco and algeria and jordan and (maybe, hopefully) syria and (b) the nature of the rebellion in libya, which i think should be supported politically and ethically.

i'm ambivalent about the neo-colonial powers being at the front of a military operation that's to protect the lives of people who are rebelling against the kinds of states that neo-liberalism (successor to the cold war) has wrought. and i don't buy the "ethical" arguments coming from any of these nation-states at all.

if they had been serious about the ethics, there'd have been a no-fly zone over gaza.

if they had been serious about the ethics, there'd have been intervention in rwanda in 1994. there'd have been intervention in eastern congo. the international community would have taken the idea of making an institutional framework that enabled international law and/or treaties and/or conventions have some teeth by providing them and enforcement capability.

the obvious problem would have followed for regimes like that of cowboy george and his neo-con confederacy of dunces for which taking a dump on the united nations seemed part of their strategy to be military hegemon in a post-cold war world. read pnac. it's noxious stuff, but it gives the line.

and the elephant in the room question about libya really is

what's next?

and....there's already criticism coming from the arab league about the initial attacks. the criticism is that the no-fly zone was supposed to be about stopping civilian casualties not substituting multiplying the sources of them. this is going to be a real mess, tactically. and strategically i am not sure that there is a clear objective here. is it to stop gadhafi or to force him to stand down? for france and the uk and us, it seems the latter. for other members of the community, it's the former. these result in quite different campaigns, obviously. so i don't know....it's complicated.



by the way have you noticed the re-emergence of the fried hardware school of war photograph over the past 24 hours? it's mostly blown apart tanks and partial view of charred remains, aspects of the video-game approach to war as a visual problem that we were subjected to back in the days when people in the entertainment-security complex still thought iraq photogenic as war goes, before the unfortunate realities kicked in and those same people decided it was better to pretend the iraq debacle didn't exist visually, to the greatest possible extent. hard to photograph that sort of unfortunate reality. but shit that's been blown up.....why that's the ticket. look at the front page of the ny times.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Well hurray for you and don't tell me I am prepared to sacrifice lives. My son and his half brother are of age. His half brother is on his way to Afghanistan, I don't want to see anyone die. Death is death, murder is murder whether by a despot or a fight to remove the despot. As for murder and death in war you have to take those risks you can't slap a wrist and say please stop. It won't happen. It's much like bullying, if kids see someone getting bullied then stand up and protect the one getting bullied. Because bullies don't stop once they get what they want from the original person they bully. They continue because it is a power rush. Same with these despots and dictators. They will continue to kill and rape and trash their countries until there is nothing and blame the US and the West until they have rebuilt a nice terrorism network brainwashed and dictated to believe that we are the bad guys. And we will be the bad guys the longer we ALLOW these rulers to get away with murder.

Until we as a people stand up and demand that OUR leaders do something to get rid of these idiotic asswipes, then we are as guilty as that leadership. If we continue to buy oil and protect those leaders as we did Mubarak for our own self interest we are more guilty. Because we know what is going on but turn a blind eye to it for self serving reasons. Same with China and Tibet.

It comes down to morals and ethics. Which do we need more of peace and leaders that spread the wealth or outright persecutions and civil rights violations in the name of sparing "US lives"? We are being freaking hypocrites.

We say we value freedom and that we don't want to see innocent people die. But in the end we don't show it. In that aspect, I can see why the rest of the world hates us. We aren't willing to sacrifice anything to save the millions of innocents in Libya, Egypt, Iran, China and so on. We instead slap a wrist and say, "don't affect our commercialized Utopia." Until WE make sacrifices and show the world we mean what we say about freedom and take out these despots and murderous leaders who care nothing about civil rights (as hypocritical as that may sound), we look like fools and are indeed such and every bit as guilty as those leaders, moreso for letting it happen.

Example: If I see an old woman getting raped and robbed, I'm picking up the nearest knife, gun, 2x4 I can to help her, as I dial 9-1-1. If they beat me down or kill me I can "live" with myself, because I sacrificed myself for what I believed to be right. If I turn a blind eye, my morals and ethics dictate that I am guiltier for letting that happen. I will have a hard time living with my conscience.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

samcol

No respect for the rule of law. No declaration of war by the congress.

I guess it's OK since Bush did it too though. More wars more money for the military industrial complex. This is sickening.

Who's the dictator again?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

KirStang

Although I'm happy that the USA and UN is fulfilling its role in promoting stability and democracy in the world, I can't help but note that China oppresses and tortures its own citizens, but we're okay with that (primarily because they're a force to be reckoned with).

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Turning a blind eye happens every day. You can chalk this up to being human nature, or you can blame the construction known as the nation state and the nationalism that keeps it secure.

The questions arising in this thread are unanswered because there aren't any easy answers. Why are we letting the Somali civil war rage on twenty years and hundreds of thousands of lives later? The Prime Directive?

We wish to look after our own before we look after others. We won't do anything of real meaning unless there is a direct correlation. Unfortunately, it's becoming harder to deny direct correlations---at all. Somalia has pirates. North Korea has nukes. Iraq has oil. Afghanistan has ties to international terrorism.

I guess is all comes down to risk vs. reward. What is the cost/benefit of ending the 20-year civil war in Somalia vs. preventing one in Libya? What is the cost/benefit of regime change in North Korea vs. Libya?

It's not all about morals and ethics and what's right. It's about what leverage you can apply that will most benefit you and your benefactors.

Military forces aren't charitable organizations. Geopolitics aren't known for their moral integrity.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

Bush Sr. had a UN resolution for the Gulf War. Bush Jr. had one for Afghanistan. Obama has one for a Libyan no-fly zone.

Rule of law? It's a UN Security Council resolution. What more do you need? Did the Bushes need Congress declarations? I didn't think so if it's under the Security Council.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

A purely emotional response, with no consideration at all given to the geo-political realities in Libya and throughout the Arab world.

I support the UN mandate for a no-fly zone. I would support the US supply arms to the rebels, either directly or through an Arab "ally"...because both actions are what the rebels have suggested as the means by which the West can support their cause. They have not asked the US to come "rescue" them.

Neither the rebels nor other Arab nations want an Iraq-style invasion and subsequent occupation of Libya by the US.

The sweetest victory of any revolution and one that has the greatest legitimacy for the long-term is one that is achieved by the rebels themselves...not by the invasion of a surrogate super-power.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

WhoaitsZ

We care because we have many interests in Libya. I don't believe we are there for the people anymore than I believe in flying pigs.

It amuses me how people in the "democratic" Congo rape infants and women and the un does nothing.

As baraka mentioned the Somali civil war has gone on years.

The US cares about the US cooperation.. They don't care about me or you or anybody else unless you're in the top 2%.

We supported Mubarak or whatever his name was. We train dozens of countries in excessive and sometimes tortuous ways. We backed Pinochet, we backed the Haiti coup (granted I do not know the story of this).

To think that the big politicians of today cares for us little people is more difficult than believing Santa is real.

I had so much faith in Obama. Fail we can believe in, indeed..

samcol

That sums it up nicely.

Reminds me of the Megadeth album title: United Abominations

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

pan6467

Again, I reiterate, IF we say we love our freedoms and we KNOW there is someone killing innocent people, is it not up to us who elect our officials to stand against those murders and have the conviction to do so? Is it not us, as the electorate, to make sure we elect those who have those convictions? Are we not as guilty by association as those leaders? We look back on history and we had people asking our government the same questions about Hitler. Which we did basically nothing until Pearl Harbor. One of our biggest crimes was letting the USSR go in unscathed to Czechloslavakia, while their leaders begged us for help.

Granted we cannot police the world, but when a people in a country revolt against a known dictator and murderer such as Mubarak, such as Khaddaffi, and so on, then is it not up to us to help them? How long can we allow murder before our conscience and kharma comes back to haunt us as a people?

You say direct correlations are blurry. I say by having Mubarak come to the US and protecting him while he's ordering troops to kill people is a very direct correlation. I say slapping Khaddaffi on the wrist after several wrist slaps is direct correlation, allowing China to exterminate Tibetians is direct correlation. We are selling ourselves for 30 pieces of silver. Am I as guilty? I buy gas for my car so I can travel and buy groceries made in these countries because they are cheaper and more accessible to find than those made here. So, yes by association, I am allowing the murders to continue. Whether I want to or not.

It comes down to comfort and convenience. Am I comfortable walking or riding a bike 20 miles to get that which I need (food, clothing, meeting friends for a day out) well, healthwise I cannot physically achieve that. I have no choice but to drive or be driven using fuel purchased from these leaders that I cannot morally support in any way.

If we wanted to truly end these murderous tyrannies, then we would make examples of the leaders like we did with Saddam. Whether or not you agree with the war, the Iraqians are better off today as a whole. We could and should do the same in Libya with Khaddaffi, and so on. And we should have done it to Mubarak. If they rule by the sword, so shall they suffer.

My belief is we cannot keep selling our souls to these leaders and expect nothing will happen. We have 9/11/01's happen because we allowed these leaders to kill their people and lead by fear and then blame us. The people see that we buy their leaders oil/products etc. and do nothing to close the sweatshops and make sure the wealth is spread around to them. So of course in their eyes we are as guilty as their dictator and we, to them may be worse, because we allow it to go on and seemingly prop up those leaders by buying what they sell and sending aid that we know will never reach the people.

We cannot live in the now. That is not only unwise but will end up costing more millions of lives in the future. We have to look to what we can do to build a better safer future for ALL peoples. Somewhere down the road all of us have to accept responsibility and make sacrifices to spare the people being killed, by taking out these leaders one way or another. Until we do we can expect more and more hatred towards us.

It's the same if you see or hear a neighbor screaming for help. Do you turn a blind eye? If you do, (this applies to many liberals who turn blind eyes to their neighbors and let domestic violence and child abuse continue, because "it's none of their business and doesn't affect them until that person is, if ever, caught by law oficials) then how can you in good conscience be against the death penalty or war? Pacifism is NO NOT NEVER just letting others suffer because doing something right may burden you, it's just not. We are all on this planet together and if you value human life, dignity and freedom at all, you must fight for EVERYONE's right for those, or be prepared to face the outcome that you allowed and made possible.

It's even in our Constitution's preamble......

by allowing and supporting dictators and despots and countries like China to kill innocent people and not value human life at all, and to support that is in no way establishing justice, domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare nor securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity. It isn't because when the people revolt against these leaders like Khaddaffi and Mubarak and so on and we sit here and do nothing or worse bring Mubarak/the Shah/Marcos/Baby Doc and so on over and give them safety and not let their people try them and pass their judgement on them then we are telling those revolutionaries "we don't care or support you."

Of course those people are going to dislike us and rightfully so. In their eyes and reality we supported those that literally killed family members, friends, countrymen of theirs and we turned a blind eye and appearred to them to support what their leaderships did. So in essence, the liberal left who think war is foolish and just a way to force our standards onto others for our own gain are screwed up and have no true sense of right and wrong. The conservative right that wants to pick and choose the wars we involve ourselves in are wrong also. You either handle Saddam and then take out Khaddaffi/Mubarak and so on or you do nothing. You can't cut it both ways. You either stand against these evil leaders that kill innocents or you let them go about killing and hope that their citizenry does it for you. It's one or the other. But economic sanctions and blah blah blah mean nothing to these leaders, they just take more away from their innocent citizenry and keep more for themselves and blame the US.

Either way, it's simple. Take them out now, stop supporting them and support the revolutionaries or continue supporting the loss of civil rights and murder and growing hatred towards us. In the end, one requires immediate sacrifice but may insure a better future for our posterity and the other builds hatred and animosity and bad kharmic mojo.

That's my opinion and views on all this. Am I willing to go to Libya and fight for the beliefs I hold, YES, in a heartbeat. Am I willing to make sacrifices that may make my life a little more inconvenient and harder? YES, if it means that countries like Libya and Egypt's citizenry have justice and in turn we develop a better relationship with those countries, I believe that in and of itself will build a better future and less scary one for future generations in this country. Are YOU willing to do that?

Our generation, those of us on this planet right now are just temporarily renting space. Our true duty is to better this planet for those who come after us, not leave bad kharma and burnt bridges to face. Because the sins of the father pass down, whether we believe it or not.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Why do you think they are buying American debt so fast? Because they care and don't want us to fail?

LOL...... no, so that we don't make waves against their little regime and we support them. So they buy our debt and export to us goods made in child labor sweatshops and we buy it up thinking we are getting a deal. The opposite is truer but we don't allow our collective consciences deal with that. What happens over there happens and we won't concern ourselves, who cares how many die if I can get a pair of Nikes for $160 instead of $200. Who cares if we ship jobs by the thousands to these people and in turn force more of our people into poverty because of low wages? Who cares if we lower our standards of living to match theirs? Who cares if as we watch their civil rights and human dignity fall to agressors so long as we maintain the facade of elections? Who cares enough to speak out and live what is right, even if it is somewhat less comfortable?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Simple? No.

Simplistic? Yes, and just a tad utopian in its simplicity, completely ignoring any geo-political consequences.

As I said before, neither the rebels nor any Arab country requested or desire a large scale US intervention.

The Arab League which had approved a no-fly zone is already condemned the broad bombing.

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya - The Washington Post

Every time we bomb and there are civilian casualties, we only increase the animosity towards the US.

Suggesting that the Preamble to the Constitution is justification for precipitous action to take out a foreign leader or invade a foreign country w/o the consent or support of the people of that country is just bizarre.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

kaerlyon

I have many difficult with the French decision (and another countries) about attack against Libya. Ok Kadhafi is a dictator, Ok, he kills his people but why we make an intervention ? Why it’s right ? Why occidental countries are judges for the rest of the world ? Only because we have money ? I don’t like that and I have many questions in my head. A part, I’m not sure is a good solution and another of part I think world can’t keep a destruction of one people.
One day, I had ear this sentence (I don’t remember where) : nobody like a missionary army. I’m not sure Libyan people think foreigner army is the freedom. Even Libyan people don’t like Kadhafi, I’m not sure they prefer a war in their country by strangers. If I think as a human, even I dislike my government, I prefer an intern solution and I wouldn’t strangers in my country and maybe I return my feeling for help the dictator against foreigners.

__________________
"And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream, Gentles, do not reprehend. If you pardon, we will mend. And, as I am an honest Puck, If we have unearned luck Now to scape the serpent's tongue, We will make amends ere long; Else the Puck a liar call". A Midsummer Night's dream

pan6467

No where did I want to imply arbitrarily taking out leaders just because we don't agree with what they are doing. My argument is that IF there is a rebellion of their people then we should do all we can to help the rebellion. IF they ask for us. I don't think we can bring Mubarak here and have him stay in the safety of our country while he's ordering troops to kill innocent people. That's taking sides. So the argument is why take the side of the opressor and not those that are fighting for what we believe to be right? If the Libyans want our help then we should help. If China's people stand up and ask for our help, then we should help. Until a nation's peoples stand up and say enough and ask others for help. Then we should stay neutral. Not continue to build up the regimes without making sure (through trade but again only the people suffer) the best way we can that those regimes accept UN mandates on civil rights and liberties. If not, then we stop trade and any aid. That simple.

It may sound impossible or what ever, but if you think outside the box and are willing to make those needed sacrifices, boycotting goods made in those countries. Then you are in part doing something. Vote for people regardless of partisanship that have the same basic principles you do, whether or not you believe that 1 vote matters. If enough people stand up for what they believe in change can happen. The problem is we have been brainwashed to live at a certain comfort level, we even have meds to make sure we believe we are in that comfort zone. Even in our "free" society we label those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, as kooks or not "normal", and yet they show more true dignity and honor iun their beliefs than we "normal" people do who don't live our beliefs because we want that comfort and we don't want to be labelled in a negative way. We'd rather not cause waves and then bitch when we see the results of our not standing up.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

That is what the US has done with the no-fly zone. The further step would be to supply arms to the rebels.

That is what they have asked for...not a massive US intervention or US ground forces.

Again, that is what the US has done by freezing $32 billion in Libyan assets under US jurisdiction and making it illegal for U.S. citizens or companies to do business with any of the 16 companies that control those assets that are under Libyan government control or ownership.

The freezing of those assets was the the largest amount of foreign assets ever seized in an American sanctions action....and the US is exploring ways in which those assets can be used to support the anti-government groups in Libya.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

Good points.... I guess we have done all we honestly could then. So our consciences can rest easy now. And the citizenry have no right to be mad for the last 20 some years we have allowed this to go on and allowed that treasure chest to build up to 32 billion dollars.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

We can look back and bitch about US foreign policy, both Democrat and Republican, for the last 20 or 50 years if that makes you feel better.

Or we can proceed in a manner that supports the interests and requests of the people of Libya as well as our own interests w/o taking precipitous actions. That means basing our actions not on past mistakes but on present geo-political considerations.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"....just a thought.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Obama's words on this issue and his actions lack clarity.

Is the military objective to simply assist with establishing a no fly zone? If so for what purpose?
Is the purpose of the no fly zone to save lives? If so, will prolonging a civil war save lives?
Is the purpose to assist the rebels in overthrowing Kadafi? If so, do they need more support?
If the rebels need more support, how much more are we going to give them? Are we committed to the end? Are we going to only provide support as long as it is politically convenient?
Who are the rebels? Are the rebels committed to a equal human rights for all? If not why support them?

So many questions with no real answers coming from the WH. And worse, we have a Congress and a press crops not demanding answers.

Say what you want about Bush, but one thing was certain - he was not ambiguous regarding the use of our military in Iraq.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

right. 8 years of disaster in iraq because the war was launched with a 2 week "plan" and that's supposed to be some model of strategic clarity. sure.



this raises some interesting questions about the no-fly zone and ways that it might--just might--not result in another debacle:

How the No Fly Zone Can Succeed | Informed Comment

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Iraq is a disaster, after 8 years?
Is it a better or worse situation today than it was 8 years ago?

Are the people of Iraq less worthy of revolutionary reform than those in Libya in your view?

Or, are you saying war is destructive, hence a disaster, and therefore in some circumstances like in Iraq, a necessary good that you feel has been a worthy endeavor?

Do you realistically believe any revolution can go according to some perfectly scripted plan that can be laid out in advance with no need for additional thought and strategy? Is that the standard that you would apply to Bush but not Obama?

Or, is the above just a throw away type comment, not to be taken seriously? I am going to assume it to be a throw away type comment. We know how you feel about Bush.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

The key point regarding outside involvement in a civil war is will the outside involvement prolong or shorten the conflict? Your guy does not address this key question. As it stands the no fly zone will not shorten this conflict, ether more needs to be done or the UN should have not gotten involved.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

All I can do is facepalm because here we go again.

Unfortunately, I was wrong in the other thread. This wasn't over in three days. Primarily because a no fly zone has magically become strategic bombing raids on targets other than anti-aircraft targets. Once the rebels decide to strength and advance in order to overthrow <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here>, are we giving close air support? I fear the answer is yes, as small arms can't take out armor columns effectively. So, we now get three wars instead of two, if only for a few months. Aren't we pulling troops from war 1...or was it war 2?

And worse off, we are yet again mired in nation-state politics in a land with deeply intrenched tribal politics. Hey, at least war 1 and 2 has given us experience for war 3.

"Bob, I know that your tribe has been killing Fred's tribe for 1000 years, but could you please stop now and let Fred's family get elected into the new government and start telling you what to do? Mmmkay?"

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

And the question is, why? I thought we voted for Obama as an anti-war - pro-diplomacy, let's make friends - not enemies, get people to love us - not hate us, President.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."