absolutely sick. can NATO do anything about this ? what kind of clout does it have with the new government ?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Libya: Seriously, where is this going?
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
absolutely sick. can NATO do anything about this ? what kind of clout does it have with the new government ?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, they've just broken the assault on the few towns and cities still opposing them, because they allegedly got a bloody nose when they moved in. Some soldiers they are.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Qaddafi is the rightful king.
It's a tactical retreat mang, too much resistance in the cities, so they got the hell out of there.
It's not like the loyalists are going to last much longer anyways, being completely surrounded by the rebels.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,099
Actually, no, the government is winning, albeit still busy "bombing its own people" in several region of the country in rebellion.
Libya having had its own air force wrecked, it's the international allies of the government doing most of the bombing.
...or didn't you got the news that the government had changed and roles had been swapped? "Humanitarian interventionism", though, didn't change sides.
And America is just a continuation of the British crown.
Me thinks you take your cynicism waaaaaay too far.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,099
Two more weeks, and the war still goes on. When Qaddafi's forces attacked rebels in cities, NATO had to intervene to "protect civilians". When the new government attacks rebels in cities, NATO bombs the cities and the government (former rebels) complain that the present rebels are the ones to blame for any deaths, because they are "using civilians as human shields".
Funny how the narration of a war can be played either way, isn't it?
Were all people cynics, at least there wouldn't be any cheering about "humanitarian wars". I'll take cynicism over hypocrisy any day.
Funny how the narration of a war can be played either way, isn't it?
Were all people cynics, at least there wouldn't be any cheering about "humanitarian wars". I'll take cynicism over hypocrisy any day.
No, that's just playing the narration to an anti-western spin, i.e. anything the west does is more evil than Satan himself.
I mean, poor Gadhaffi, all he wanted to do was exterminate the rebels and punish the populace for attempting to overthrow his oppressive regime, when all of a sudden the Western imperialists come in and bomb his country because they think it's funny.
We should start a fund innonimatu, "Protect the aging Autocrats", they're obviously becoming an endangered species due to over-hunting by the imperialists. Autocrats should be allowed to live in their natural habitats without interference, bombing their own people, sending tanks into cities, turning hanging of "dissidents" into a public spectacle. If we don't do anything now, those relics of a better time might go the way of the dodo.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
You're still complaining?
I mean, everyone with a basic understanding of how UN resolutions work knew what this was about from the start, you included. Had the draft included "we want to get rid of Gaddafi by means of armed intervention", it would never have passed. It's how the UN "works" - most of the time it's completely ineffective, and on the few occasions when it can do something it can only happen if everybody lies.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,099
Correction: because it has oil.
No need. There's plenty of aging autocrats running our "democracies", they just take turns occupying different offices, instead of trying to keep always the same one. No risk of extinction for autocracy. Or perhaps it's "oligarchy"? Whatever, same crap for all those on the bottom.
If anything, they may actually be trying to spread this more resistant variation of autocracy around the world, and not just trying to steal the oil and accumulated funds of the libyan state. Not that I expect it'll have a chance of this more modern and stable oligarchic democracy taking root in Libya, instead of the whole country going to hell. But it would be nice, wouldn't it? No more hangings, no more tanks in cities, just a choice every 4 or 5 years between one party and the same party with a different name.
I really don't see why we even have to bomb those countries into adopting this model: the autocrats should be able to see its advantages on their own. Oh, wait, can t be because they know it won't yet work in their countries because its society is still different? But no, surely we "westerners" know better that they do. Were not Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan resounding successes where democracy and prosperity flourished?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,099
I'm pissed about the process, ok? I don't like seeing countries attacked, whatever the causes. Especially when the causes invoked and plainly hypocritical. They estabelish (actually, reinforce) bad, bad precedents. And I don't have any faith on a good outcome from this civil war and revolution supported from the outside. Time will tell. But I give in to the majority opinion, I'll abandon arguing over Libya here.
Verbose
Deity
Clearly we should let people in foreign parts just kill each other as they see fit, and then cut a deal with the survivors.
Oh, right, that was how we used to do this...
Oh, right, that was how we used to do this...
Where is this a slippery slope too? The only thing it actually sets a precedent for is humanitarian intervention. This does not make intervention on any other basis more likely in the future. There is still a requirement for a humanitarian pretext, even if there are ulterior motives (which aren't going to be avoided whether the humanitarian aspects are taken into account or not). How is that 'bad'?
Hypocrisy becomes more acceptable, and oligarchs can exploit the weak with a clearer conscience, with less risk of pesky liberals protesting against it.
It's not really hypocrisy though, it's the presence of ulterior motives. There is still a humanitarian aspect that must be there, and whilst it's still framed as being the key objective, so must it be for anything it sets a precedent for.
Assuming it is setting a precedent of hypocrisy is assuming that there is something hypocritical about having an ulterior motive. There isn't. NATO says 'we are doing this for humanitarian reasons', and even if you're pretty cynical that's at least partially true. Most of the "they're doing it for oil" objection (that I haven't seen a convincing argument for, but have seen convincing arguments against) is in the vein of "why not Syria?" But NATO benefitting more out of hitting Libya than Syria is independent of any humanitarian benefit that intervention provides, and the 'hypocrisy' that would come into it is if NATO itself was perpetrating human rights abuses (and whilst there have certainly been some ugly things on the rebel side here, I don't buy into the argument that NATO is an equal menace to Gaddafi). As much as I'd prefer motives to be as pure as possible, so long as a necessary humanitarian objective is being pursued, how is the benefit the intervenor receives relevant? If Rwanda had oil (maybe it does, IDK), I wouldn't suddenly think it less worthy of intervention, for instance.
I think Libya sets a fantastic precedent, personally, when you contrast it to, say, Iraq (and this clear contrast is why claims that they're the same are pretty absurd).
Assuming it is setting a precedent of hypocrisy is assuming that there is something hypocritical about having an ulterior motive. There isn't. NATO says 'we are doing this for humanitarian reasons', and even if you're pretty cynical that's at least partially true. Most of the "they're doing it for oil" objection (that I haven't seen a convincing argument for, but have seen convincing arguments against) is in the vein of "why not Syria?" But NATO benefitting more out of hitting Libya than Syria is independent of any humanitarian benefit that intervention provides, and the 'hypocrisy' that would come into it is if NATO itself was perpetrating human rights abuses (and whilst there have certainly been some ugly things on the rebel side here, I don't buy into the argument that NATO is an equal menace to Gaddafi). As much as I'd prefer motives to be as pure as possible, so long as a necessary humanitarian objective is being pursued, how is the benefit the intervenor receives relevant? If Rwanda had oil (maybe it does, IDK), I wouldn't suddenly think it less worthy of intervention, for instance.
I think Libya sets a fantastic precedent, personally, when you contrast it to, say, Iraq (and this clear contrast is why claims that they're the same are pretty absurd).
Thorgalaeg
Deity
That concept of leaving countries "own" matters to themselves avoiding "external" interventions is becoming more and more unrealistic and a thing of the past. And I am not speaking about humanitarian concerns but about global economy and interests. Of course any intervention should be approved and supervised by a stronger and really democratic world organization (maybe it is not the case with the current UN) however the world is evolving into some sort of global government and it is an unstoppable process.
IMHO NATO/The West in going to war over Libya while taking a much softer stance against other regimes (Syria, Yemen, Egypt) or even tacitly supporting suppression (Bahrain, Algeria) is being quite hypocritical. Just my personal view though.
It depends whether you think any short- or medium-term humanitarian benefits are outweighed by the consequences of war (death, destruction and social and economic disruption in the short-term, cost of rebuilding, shortage of skills, increased instability, social unrest and/or civil war in the long term) plus the consequences of a country coming under the negative influence or exploitation of a foreign power or megacorporations.
By framing an intervention as "humanitarian" (independent of whether the situation actually justifies such a labelling; IMHO Libya's case does), it becomes easier for a power to justify the intervention, and for the public to accept it. Hence there is a danger that the negative aspects of intervention (let's call it what it is: war) won't be thoroughly explored or scrutinised.
Similar threads
