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

[aelf]

I don't know what version of events you're getting, but the protesters were peaceful, latching onto the idea of democracy from the other revolts happening around the region. Even if some were more violent, deadly force was not justified.

So, what, are you arguing for a proportionate government response to sporadic violence in protest movements? Funny how conservatives don't necessarily apply that reasoning to authoritarian countries that they like when incidences of violence occur during protest.

We're not bombing the country. We're bombing an illegitimate government that is attempting to slaughter its people.

We don't have a war on Libya. We have a war with Libya.

So sovereignty lies either with the state or with the people, depending on which suits your purposes?

 

[Defiant47]

So, what, are you arguing for a proportionate government response to sporadic violence in protest movements? Funny how conservatives don't necessarily apply that reasoning to authoritarian countries that they like when incidences of violence occur during protest.

I don't like any authoritarian countries, thank you.

So sovereignty lies either with the state or with the people, depending on which suits your purposes?

It's not a simple situation where you can say "sovereignty is applicable in these cases always, and not in these always".

But it is safe to deduct that when a state opens fire on its own people in order to maintain power, its legitimacy has been lost, and military action is critical to bring it down and save the people. If we even care about those people. I mean, some people may not care that some "brown" people halfway across the world are being slaughtered by an insane dictator.

 

[aelf]

I don't like any authoritarian countries, thank you.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that there are some who condemn Libya who also thought that the Chinese reaction to events in Tibet were quite justified due to the violence employed by some protesters. I remember that there wasn't nearly as much sympathy back then.

It's not a simple situation where you can say "sovereignty is applicable in these cases always, and not in these always".

So basically the reason for not having to take a consistent stand is "It's complicated"? It's that simple, I know.

But it is safe to deduct that when a state opens fire on its own people in order to maintain power, its legitimacy has been lost, and military action is critical to bring it down and save the people. If we even care about those people.

So the state's sovereignty arises from its legitimacy? Otherwise sovereignty lies in the people? Maybe I can buy that. But I'm not sure why Libya firing on its own people is anything particularly special to the realists. It's a civil war. If the government is not firing on (some of) its own people, then I don't know what a civil war is. I don't see people advocating intervention on the side of 'the people' in every civil war. Is this another case of 'complicated' logic?

 

[Defiant47]

So basically the reason for not having to take a consistent stand is "It's complicated"? It's that simple, I know.

No, I'm saying the reason for not having a consistent and simple answer is because it's complicated.

The reason for not taking a consistent stand is politics.

So the state's sovereignty arises from its legitimacy? Otherwise sovereignty lies in the people? Maybe I can buy that. But I'm not sure why Libya firing on its own people is anything particularly special to the realists. It's a civil war. If the government is not firing on (some of) its own people, then I don't know what a civil war is. I don't see people advocating intervention on the side of 'the people' in every civil war. Is this another case of 'complicated' logic?

Well it's not as simple as firing on protesters, although that should be enough. It's also a case of how much support the government has.

Libya's government clearly has very little support from its people. The only reason it is doing so well is because it has the military hardware that the populace doesn't - an advantage that the no-fly zone aims to nullify.

 

[aelf]

No, I'm saying the reason for not having a consistent and simple answer is because it's complicated.

The reason for not taking a consistent stand is politics.

Interestingly, for all the supposed subtlety and complexity of the pro-intervention position, the recommended course of action is pretty simple and instinctive: Bomb the baddies!

Well, pardon me if I ask for a more solid and consistent reasoning to warrant a reaction like that. Not saying that this is necessarily the wrong course of action, but I wonder if the reasoning comes before or after the decision to take action is made.

Well it's not as simple as firing on protesters, although that should be enough. It's also a case of how much support the government has.

Libya's government clearly has very little support from its people. The only reason it is doing so well is because it has the military hardware that the populace doesn't - an advantage that the no-fly zone aims to nullify.

I'm actually curious as to how exactly people know this. Maybe I've just not been following the events closely enough, but that's partly because I find myself easily put off by experts who are raring to give their predictive analyses of the ongoing situation.

In any case, how little support must a government have (and according to what indicators) before it clearly becomes the bad guy? I don't think this has been subject to much reflection.

 

[JollyRoger]

freerepublic has turned into Code Pink.

 

[Defiant47]

Interestingly, for all the supposed subtlety and complexity of the pro-intervention position, the recommended course of action is pretty simple and instinctive: Bomb the baddies!

My recommended course of action is a full-scale invasion*, but the international theatre of politics is very afraid of that idea.

* - and by invasion, I mean liberation

Well, pardon me if I ask for a more solid and consistent reasoning to warrant a reaction like that. Not saying that this is necessarily the wrong course of action, but I wonder if the reasoning comes before or after the decision to take action is made.

I know I've been throwing this around a lot, but it still holds true. Killing innocent protesters and bombing people who disagree with the government. This warrants our reaction.

I'm actually curious as to how exactly people know this. Maybe I've just not been following the events closely enough, but that's partly because I find myself easily put off by experts who are raring to give their predictive analyses of the ongoing situation.

In any case, how little support must a government have (and according to what indicators) before it clearly becomes the bad guy? I don't think this has been subject to much reflection.

It's a hard spectrum to analyze. Technically if a hostile government opens fire on even one (originally peacefully) dissenting city, it's a bad guy... just that the dangers of intervention outweigh the benefits.

 

[Disgustipated]

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html

I almost agree with Farakhan here. You can't force a leader to step down. Libya is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack it. Yes I'm upset with the terrorist bombing in the 80's, but there is still no proof he gave the order.

FARRAKHAN: "I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world...Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can't order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?

 

[Truthy]

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html

I almost agree with Farakhan here. You can't force a leader to step down. Libya is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack it. Yes I'm upset with the terrorist bombing in the 80's, but there is still no proof he gave the order.

It doesn't require a right, it only requires justification. There is no right to declaring war and killing the soldiers and people of another nation. It is only determined that such a course of action is necessary if the results are justified (consequentialism). There is ample evidence that Gaddafi intends to commit atrocities against his own people. He has said repeatedly that he will show no mercy against the rebels. By overthrowing him or forcing him to halt the attacks, the UN can potentially save thousands of lives. In that respect there is ample justification for attacking Libya because of the good outcomes it would have for the Libyans.

 

[Ramius75]

so, when is Nato going to attack Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ???

 

[emzie]

so, when is Nato going to attack Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ???

When oil doesn't matter. Actually, probably not then either, since regional stability will be moot.

 

[Verbose]

Possible when there's a broad consensus in the UN that its an appropriate, or at least acceptable, course of action. Like there now is over whether Ghaddafi represents the people of Libya, or not.

The lesson to autocrats is not to lose control of things for long enough to allow that kind of doubt about their ability to keep their nations down. The other autocrats are not happy with weakness like that, and the democracies are looking for signs of it.

 

[Incodcito]

so, when is Nato going to attack Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ???

Is there a guy behind the Saudi king wearing a top hat?

 

[Defiant47]

I almost agree with Farakhan here. You can't force a leader to step down. Libya is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack it. Yes I'm upset with the terrorist bombing in the 80's, but there is still no proof he gave the order.

The lives of innocents are more important than the sovereignty of an illegitimate government.

 

[dosed150]

The lives of innocents are more important than the sovereignty of an illegitimate government.

I think sovereignty is a priviledge not a right, and when a government isnt democratically elected by its people that makes it ilegitimate, but for quite a few reasons i think we should only intervene when a movement against that government forms

so i support the intervention in libya

 

[Defiant47]

I think sovereignty is a priviledge not a right, and when a government isnt democratically elected by its people that makes it ilegitimate, but for quite a few reasons i think we should only intervene when a movement against that government forms

so i support the intervention in libya

I consider inaction against a government idle support. A population that does nothing to oppose an authoritarian government is silently approving it until they revolt. A sense of "I disagree with this, but not that much or enough to do something about it". It's when the populace actually become active in their nonsupport that it is necessary to back them up - and of course this depends on how much of the populace we're talking about.

 

[Xanikk999]

The lives of innocents are more important than the sovereignty of an illegitimate government.

Just for the sake of arguing I would like to point out that tons of recognized governments are technically just as "Illegitimate" as Libya.

The United States was founded by a revolution, and if you want to really stretch it, the vast majority of European countries that deposed their monarchs may be considered illegitimate such as Spain, France, Russia (Even though the Romanov family was completely killed when the Soviets took over there may still be a legitimate royal claim if the Tsardom was reinstated) and Italy as well.

My point is attacking a country just because of its long standing illegitimacy is a really weak argument considering a ton of countries recognized by everyone are illegitimate.

 

[Arwon]

(Spain is a Monarchy)

 

[Xanikk999]

(Spain is a Monarchy)

They never abolished their monarchy? Well I admit my knowledge of Modern Spanish history is lacking.. How embarrasing.

I just assumed after Franco kicked the bucket they wouldn't of bothered.

 

[cardgame]

Why do you assume a monarchy is a legitimate government?

A legitimate government is one that has the backing of the people. and democracy in place.