U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

[Verbose]

Who knows? And who knows how many Libyans want a modern secular democratic form of government instead of a backward theocracy in its place?

So we should just believe all the clearly one-sided propaganda of innocent protestors being slaughtered by the evil Gadhafi? The opposition clearly has some rather sophisticated weapons themselves, including military jets.

This appears to be a civil war no different than any other civil war.

It started with a popular uprising which a long-term dictator is now trying to supress in blood. I don't consider that just like any other civil war. And certainly not in the Middle East. This one is directly about Ghaddafi being allowed to rule the Libyans or not, and virtually nothing else.

I tend to agree with you one lots of things, but this is one instance where your skepticism keeps getting you wrong, imo of course.

You need better news services or something? I dunno. In these instances it tends to boil down to who we think we can trust. It won't make any difference to you of course, but anything relating to the Arab world, I'm inclined to stick to the judgement of Elisabeth Undén (Arab speaker) of the Swedish public service radio. Hasn't gotten me wrong yet so that's what I'm sticking to. No guarantee of course.

 

[Holycannoli]

Who knows? And who knows how many Libyans want a modern secular democratic form of government instead of a backward theocracy in its place?

So we should just believe all the clearly one-sided propaganda of innocent protestors being slaughtered by the evil Gadhafi? The opposition clearly has some rather sophisticated weapons themselves, including military jets.

This appears to be a civil war no different than any other civil war.

Yeah these rebels are pretty nicely armed, don't you think?

I wonder why some people are seeing a grand humanitarian effort here and are so quick to praise the decision to intervene, when other conflicts and interventions in the past were quickly denounced?

I would have been all for intervention if it was decided back when innocent protesters were getting gunned down. The situation is different now though, and I want to know what makes Libya so special that they deserve intervention and other countries don't? Bahrain is also bloody, when will we intervene there?

I want a standard I guess, not a double standard. I didn't like the US being criticized for trying to be the world's police force, yet are expected to respond to and pay for international disasters like the tsunami a few years ago in Malaysia. I don't like how war in Libya is so quickly embraced, and war in Iraq is so quickly denounced. Two dictators, both commited atrocities against their own people (IMO Hussein being the worse of the two by far), and there was widespread support to take out both in the beginning.

Hmm, I'm so conflicted on this. I'm all for removing the Ghadafi's, Husseins, and Il's of the world, but I'm not for intervening in purely internal affairs and civil wars under the guise of "humanitarian" concerns. I don't like being lied to Haiti was humanitarian intervention. Bosnia was humanitarian intervention. This Libya intervention is to support the rebels in their overthrow of Ghadafi. So just say it.

 

[Incodcito]

I think a great number of them apparently do.

I also think we have no idea what the people of Libya actually want.

... just stop, please.

 

[Holycannoli]

...and we launched tomahawks at air defenses and I'm hearing ground forces. That's an act of war. I hope everyone who supports this is ready! You don't attack a sovereign nation dealing with internal affairs and not go to war. We won't be stopping until Gadhafi is killed, captured or voluntarily gives up power and goes into exile, and even that may not be enough.

EDIT: And they're still claiming this is to protect the people of Libya. Do they really think we're that dumb?

 

[emzie]

Third war's the charm.

Libyan state television showed Gadhafi supporters converging on the international airport and a military garrison in Tripoli, and the airport in Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, in an apparent attempt to deter bombing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

If you voluntarily enter a combat zone with a combat intent, you are no longer a civilian.

 

[illram]

Eliminate Gaddafi and every one of his supporters, and bring in a new era of real democracy for Libya. Even if they elect someone that we don't agree with, they elected him darnit.



Kill Gaddafi and every one of his supporters. No mercy.



With our military power, nearly every one of Gaddafi's supporters will be exterminated.



It is not. It is purely an appeal to humanitarian reasons, saving innocents, and trying to make a better world.



Ethically and morally speaking, yes. Practically, no. We would like to be able to exterminate any authoritarian government that slaughters its people in order to stay in power - but it's just not practical. Yet. We need to increase our military power further.

Now this, at least, is something. It is a concrete precedent. It could be applied, somewhat objectively from the perspective of the intervening nation's own cultural and moral compass, again and again. I may disagree with it but it's a "rule" in a sense, that can be followed.

But what is currently happening to me seems, I don't know, totally prone to inconsistency and more or less divorced from humanitarian concerns, insofar as the West is essentially saying they will intervene in a civil war when it is convenient to do so and the local bad guys who hold sway in the region who are our "allies" (and who in many respects are almost as bad) give us the OK. I am not comfortable with fighting wars in support of democracy based on the whims of very un-democratic leaders giving us their permission. We should be very cognizant of Arab public opinion, of course. But the opinion of other dictators?

This kind of thinking, as I see it, allows it intervention in a civil war for democracy but not in cases of genocide, such as in Sudan. (Remember the Sudan UN Security council votes fell along almost the same lines as this one did. 12-3 with China and Russia abstaining. A vote for stronger military intervention ala the Libyan vote likely would have fallen along the same lines) I am not comfortable with that being the standard going forward. Either we make humanitarian concerns paramount and of primary importance and act consistently, or we don't.

@camikaze: my other practical concern for this particular fight is how far a country like France is willing to go to oust Qaddafi, and what they do after he is gone. We seem to be going far beyond a no-fly zone, in that France and the UK are going full steam ahead and trying to take out Qaddafi's military to support the rebels. Does France stop there? What if the next guy is not so great either? What will France do after? Will they want something in return? What if the refugee problem increases, which is often what happens in any military intervention of this sort, such as what happened in the Balkans.

From a selfish perspective my concerns are alleviated due to the fact that this conflict will not be bearing a US stamp on it, which was one of my primary concerns with military action. But others remain.

This is a difficult issue and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer necessarily. In a sense I am thinking out loud in this thread.

 

[Flying Pig]

If you voluntarily enter a combat zone with a combat intent, you are no longer a civilian.

They're civillians; that's passive resistance a la Ghandi. So long as they don't try to kill anyone, they're not combatants.

 

[emzie]

They're civillians; that's passive resistance a la Ghandi. So long as they don't try to kill anyone, they're not combatants.

If they're camped out by military targets, and those military targets are being used to try and kill someone, they're combatants. If they're camped out by Gadaffi's* house that's a bit different, sure.


*I love being able to spell names on the fly

 

[Incodcito]

...and we launched tomahawks at air defenses and I'm hearing ground forces. That's an act of war. I hope everyone who supports this is ready! You don't attack a sovereign nation dealing with internal affairs and not go to war. We won't be stopping until Gadhafi is killed, captured or voluntarily gives up power and goes into exile, and even that may not be enough.

EDIT: And they're still claiming this is to protect the people of Libya. Do they really think we're that dumb?

Mission creep is always a risk when engaging in operations such as this. However, I'd say that the risk is substantially lower then in other conflicts, simply because there is a capable local Rebel force that can exploit the hopefully ragged openings made by the Allied Air Forces against the Gov't.

As for your second paragraph, this intervention is to protect the Libyan people...

Spoiler :

...among other things of equal or greater value to the various governments taking part.

 

[kronic]

I'm surprised to see the French at the forefront of this alliance and effectively leading the Western alliance into a new war. What is Sarkozy's motivation?

A funny sidenote: Gaddafi's son claims Lybia sponsored Sarkozy's 2007 electoral campaign and demands the money to be repaid.
(source)

 

[Incodcito]

I'm surprised to see the French at the forefront of this alliance and effectively leading the Western alliance into a new war. What are Sarkozy's motivations.

A funny sidenote: Gaddafi's son claims Lybia sponsored Sarkozy's 2007 electoral campaign and demands the money to be repaid.
(source)

I'm not. Sarkozy is at great risk of not getting re-elected and needs something popular to help him in the polls.

 

[Flying Pig]

If they're camped out by military targets, and those military targets are being used to try and kill someone, they're combatants. If they're camped out by Gadaffi's* house that's a bit different, sure.

Oh no they're not! We don't generally make a habit of bombing people in their homes because we know that somewhere on their street was being used as a mortar emplacement.

 

[emzie]

Oh no they're not! We don't generally make a habit of bombing people in their homes because we know that somewhere on their street was being used as a mortar emplacement.

You don't think there's a small difference between a mortar emplacement hidden in a neighbourhood, and flock of people making their way to an airbase and a military garrison?

 

[Flying Pig]

You don't think there's a small difference between a mortar emplacement hidden in a neighbourhood, and flock of people making their way to an airbase and a military garrison?

Not really. If it's trying to kill us, we shoot it. If it's not, we don't.

 

[Defiant47]

Now this, at least, is something. It is a concrete precedent. It could be applied, somewhat objectively from the perspective of the intervening nation's own cultural and moral compass, again and again. I may disagree with it but it's a "rule" in a sense, that can be followed.

But what is currently happening to me seems, I don't know, totally prone to inconsistency and more or less divorced from humanitarian concerns, insofar as the West is essentially saying they will intervene in a civil war when it is convenient to do so and the local bad guys who hold sway in the region who are our "allies" (and who in many respects are almost as bad) give us the OK. I am not comfortable with fighting wars in support of democracy based on the whims of very un-democratic leaders giving us their permission. We should be very cognizant of Arab public opinion, of course. But the opinion of other dictators?

This kind of thinking, as I see it, allows it intervention in a civil war for democracy but not in cases of genocide, such as in Sudan. (Remember the Sudan UN Security council votes fell along almost the same lines as this one did. 12-3 with China and Russia abstaining. A vote for stronger military intervention ala the Libyan vote likely would have fallen along the same lines) I am not comfortable with that being the standard going forward. Either we make humanitarian concerns paramount and of primary importance and act consistently, or we don't.

We live in a political world. Unfortunately, you are right - this is likely happening because the other bad people are OK with us taking down this bad person.

My wishes and ideals are not shared by the world - rarely will military action be prompted by something bad happening, like the genocides in Sudan. But I guess we just have to look at the silver lining for these instances where we can intervene.

They're civillians; that's passive resistance a la Ghandi. So long as they don't try to kill anyone, they're not combatants.

They are actively supporting a regime that is ruthlessly slaughtering innocents. They have forfeited their lives.

 

[Newbunkle]

So, time for Operation Invade Libya is it?

 

[Flying Pig]

They are actively supporting a regime that is ruthlessly slaughtering innocents. They have forfeited their lives.

Again, no. Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that we will meet their non-violence with force. That's what seperates an army from an armed mob - discipline.

 

[Holycannoli]

So, time for Operation Invade Libya is it?

No we won't invade. We will enforce a no-fly zone, attack his ground forces, let the rebels win, and then claim it's the Libyan people that overthrew him.

I hope we intervene militarily in Bahrain next. Don't want to look like hypocrites, only intervening in some countries and not others. Oh wait, they have to have an armed rebellion that's about to lose before we decide to do anything.

EDIT: The idiot should have stuck to the cease fire that was announced. What the hell was he thinking?

 

[MeteorPunch]

As for your second paragraph, this intervention is to protect the Libyan people...

Then why are we attacking them for supporting their leader?

EDIT: The idiot should have stuck to the cease fire that was announced. What the hell was he thinking?

I'm guessing he tried to stick to it and we or the rebels are lying, or it wasn't able to be completely rolled out fast enough because of bad technology and conditions.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It started with a popular uprising which a long-term dictator is now trying to supress in blood.

That is rather debatable. It seems to me that Gadhafi went out of his way to allow the protests for weeks until the protestors started trying to arm themselves with Gadhafi's own weapons. Then when he tried to stop them from doing so, they started whining that Gadhafi was brutally murdering them in the streets for no apparent reason, even though they were burning and pillaging their own governmental offices. Then they started whining that Gadhafi was actually using the military to guard his own arms caches. What did they expect him to do?

I don't consider that just like any other civil war. And certainly not in the Middle East. This one is directly about Ghaddafi being allowed to rule the Libyans or not, and virtually nothing else.

I certainly would agree with that. This is really all about making Gadhafi pay for his past acts much more than it is about the current civil war. After all, the US and Europe aren't doing anything to stop the Bahrain government killing protestors and the Saudis from being heavy-handed with their own protestors.

I tend to agree with you one lots of things, but this is one instance where your skepticism keeps getting you wrong, imo of course.

I'm not saying that Gadhafi shouldn't be deposed. I just don't like all the absurd propaganda being spewed to try to rationalize it.

Yeah these rebels are pretty nicely armed, don't you think?

Yes, they are. It would appear that Gadhafi's fears were completely justified. These aren't peaceful protestors. They are engaged in a brutal civil war and are likely no better than Gadhafi's own soldiers and supporters.

... just stop, please.

Why do you apparently find the facts to be so uncomfortable? Gadhafi seems to have fairly wide support in Libya judging from the number of people who showed up at his rallies.

Once again, we really don't know what portion of the population backs him or the rebels. And we likely will never find out now.

This all reminds me a lot of the last Iranian election when so many were convinced that the majority of Iranians wanted to depose their own government, when it really turned out to be a handful of people who were bitter when they lost the election and were trying to illegally grab power for their own obvious agendas. It was all quite similar to the reaction that Obama caused in the US amongst many of the Tea Partyers.

I think people were really hoping that Gadhafi would simply go away as Mubarak did in Egypt. The difference is that Mubarak was largely our stooge and realized that he no longer had the blessing of the Bush government to back him no matter what he did. OTOH Gadhafi has always been a rogue who has had no real support other than from his own people.