U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces
- Thread starter Incodcito
- Start date
So most of you agree that humanitarian concerns are not the primary criteria for determining whether international coalitions should take military action in an intrastate conflict? E.g. we are not going into Bahrain to prevent civilian casualties because the Arab League (a group of nasty dictatorships with brutal human rights records) has not provided their OK to do so? (Unlike Libya, in which Hillary said the Arab League's endorsement was the "game changer.")
Humanitarian concerns fit under 'because most of the world agrees Qaddaffi is a bad guy'. But you can't just go in anywhere that has humanitarian problems; that's impractical, and could very well be counterproductive. You need to pick and choose your fights, and this is one that has been chosen.
Do you agree we are not "choosing" Bahrain because other dictators have not provided us with their approval of such an operation?
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
We're not choosing Bahrain because the Saudis would flip their Shiite.
Which is bull-shiite!
The Saudi government is a despicable lot of loathsome dictators that we pathetically suck up to because of their massive oil reserves. So we are marching to the orders of bad guy A in order to get rid of bad guy B. I doubt this engenders much love for us in, say, Yemen. Where we actively support the current government and supply them with weapons, by the way. And the other dilemma: what is our goal? Ousting Qaddafi? What if the Libyan people cannot do it with our no fly zone? Do we go one step further?
Despite my strong personal feelings against it, we need to accept Realpolitik and drill our own oil. I mean, the fact that we can't do anything in the Mid East anymore simply because we are addicted to their oil is ridiculous. We also need to step up research on alternative fuels.
You can't mix "should" and "are" here. Humanitarian concerns are very easily trumped by other considerations.
People are still on the Afghanistan/oil (and/or natural gas) angle, Quixote.
... though those high mountains would be excellent for wind turbines...
iv used such tactics in EU3 to great effect.
Fund rebels
if thay cant get the job done on there own declare war (in this case claiming humanitarianism)
then wipe out the army that is stopping the rebels you funded so thay can do as thay like.
U.N. is just a oligarcy institut for the oligarcs of the world to weild (a nation is not a democracy when the populace has to protest to get heard/lisened to) (a nation is not a republic if the laws of the land are not equally applyed)
this situation is just the bigger dictaters (U.N.) beating up the little dictator (Qaddaffi)
Fund rebels
if thay cant get the job done on there own declare war (in this case claiming humanitarianism)
then wipe out the army that is stopping the rebels you funded so thay can do as thay like.
U.N. is just a oligarcy institut for the oligarcs of the world to weild (a nation is not a democracy when the populace has to protest to get heard/lisened to) (a nation is not a republic if the laws of the land are not equally applyed)
this situation is just the bigger dictaters (U.N.) beating up the little dictator (Qaddaffi)
So you agree?
I think people are being too quick to hop on the pro-intervention bandwagon. This was the kind of thinking that made otherwise intelligent people think that invading Iraq was a good idea.
What is the goal? How far will we go to get it? What is the likely outcome? Is it in our interests to pursue it? Is this the right precedent to perform these actions? (I.e., the precedent of only doing it if other bad people--the right bad people--say you can.)
There's worlds of difference between the 2003 Iraq invasion and this. Really, the current wave of revolts in the Arab world makes a mockery of the fantasies of the Bush Doctrine as attempted in Iraq.
The current situation is the world responding to a rapidly developing situation of protest, revolt and revolution, where there's an alternative government and a credible popular movement on the ground, which lives or dies by the balance of forces arrayed in that country. We are responding to that, we are following the lead of people in the country. The goal is change the balance of forces in the country by neutralising Gaddafi's two strengths (air power and armour/artillery), to protect them so that they can finish what they started, give them confidence and support so as to convince waverers in the Libyan people, its military, and its government. It was requested.
2003 was built on right-wing American fantasies that the mere act of invading a country would spontaneously generate popular support and democracy and all that stuff. It was built on the notion that the peoples of the Middle East couldn't do themselves what they're now doing, and a delusional belief that the West is capable of not merely responding to events, but to entirely create and direct them. It was a hubristic and insane attempt to build a revolutionary situation out of nothing via invasion.
If people really can't see that difference they aren't trying very hard.
The current situation is the world responding to a rapidly developing situation of protest, revolt and revolution, where there's an alternative government and a credible popular movement on the ground, which lives or dies by the balance of forces arrayed in that country. We are responding to that, we are following the lead of people in the country. The goal is change the balance of forces in the country by neutralising Gaddafi's two strengths (air power and armour/artillery), to protect them so that they can finish what they started, give them confidence and support so as to convince waverers in the Libyan people, its military, and its government. It was requested.
2003 was built on right-wing American fantasies that the mere act of invading a country would spontaneously generate popular support and democracy and all that stuff. It was built on the notion that the peoples of the Middle East couldn't do themselves what they're now doing, and a delusional belief that the West is capable of not merely responding to events, but to entirely create and direct them. It was a hubristic and insane attempt to build a revolutionary situation out of nothing via invasion.
If people really can't see that difference they aren't trying very hard.
I'm not talking about military intervention to build a democracy. I am talking about people going along with a nice narrative justifying military intervention without really thinking it through and considering the consequences.
So you're not talking about any aspects of any specific situations and whether they can be compared, but getting meta and instead talking about the general fact that people accept narratives without thinking too hard?
I'll merely make this meta-observation in response, then: responding to a situation with narrative-acceptance and a lack of critical thought is not exclusive to either side of this or any debate.
I'll merely make this meta-observation in response, then: responding to a situation with narrative-acceptance and a lack of critical thought is not exclusive to either side of this or any debate.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Well, Gaddafi doesn't have much to lose at this point anyways.
