Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Aeson]

I am undecided upon this issue due to not being able to watch YouTube videos. It is however very clear that this is a much different situation than Egypt where we aren't bombing anyone yet (I hope... see YouTube disclaimer).

[Egbert]

Yeah but we keep getting told that bombings and interventions and invasions are good, we're doing them a favour and making the world a better place and what not. All humanitarian of course. Perhaps we should reform our characters by bombing everything, intervening all over the planet and invading everyone. To help them for their own good.

[BeBMan]

It is first important to consider that the cry of 'genocide' is an emotive plea that is too often made for the precise motive of encouraging military action when the genuine circumstances are something very different. Governments eager to drum up public support for militaristic over-reactions are highly prone to this, and the value of atrocity-porn propaganda is highly attractive to warmongers seeking to justify their actions when a more sober analysis might rightly conclude that they are, in fact, aggressors attacking a sovereign state.

Libya is seemingly in a state of civil war where an undoubtedly unpleasant dictator is facing armed opposition and is using unsurprising methods in his attempts to maintain his power. Saddam Hussain demonstrated similar credentials to opposition over his long reign and his behaviour was taken by some, including one Tony Blair plus many others, to provide a sound moral imperative for regime-change. I see little difference between the motives and enthusiasm of Tony Blair to effect change in Iraq, all in the name of sparing the lives of innocent potential victims of the monster, and those painting the Libyan conflict in a similar way.

The Iraq campaign turned out to be a bloody disaster, as I'm sure most people here would agree, and people are still dying in depressingly large numbers, on a daily basis to this very day. Saddam would have to have been very busy to have inflicted the number of casualties that the Iraq war has tragically precipitated, but it is important to remember that the messianic Tony Blair genuinely believed that he was undertaking an heroic action to spare the lives of innocents and to prevent what he would certainly have considered to be the kind of 'genocide' that people like to pretend they are averting by declaring war on Libya today.

The 'stand idly by' accusation is a cheap and shallow analysis which attempts to paint opponents of dangerous militarism as morally-bankrupt appeasers while ignoring the disastrous track-record of previous interventions which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Those trying to suggest that their support of this militarism is on the side of the angels would do well to carefully consider the catastrophic outcome of the great crusade against Saddam Hussain.

The 'dangerous militarism' accusation is a cheap and shallow analysis which attempts to paint opponents of morally-bankrupt appeasers as babyeaters while ignoring the disastrous track-record of 'idly standing by' which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

[Egbert]

I think we should stay out of it. There is not a good track record of interference.

[Heraclitus]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...027,full.story

For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.

Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi's militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. ...

One young man from Ghana bolted from the prisoners queue. He shouted in English at an American reporter: "I'm not a soldier! I work for a construction company in Benghazi! They took me from my house … "

A guard shoved the prisoner back toward the cells.

"Go back inside!" he ordered.

The guard turned to the reporter and said: "He lies. He's a mercenary." ...

The opposition has acknowledged detaining an unspecified number of sub-Saharan Africans on suspicion of serving as Kadafi mercenaries. Human Rights Watch has described a concerted campaign in which thousands of men have been driven from their homes in eastern Libya and beaten or arrested. ...

One of the accused shown to journalists was Alfusainey Kambi, 53, a disheveled Gambian wearing a bloodstained sport shirt and military fatigue trousers. He said he had been dragged from his home and beaten by three armed men who he said also raped his wife. A dirty bandage covered a wound on his forehead.

Khaled Ben Ali, a volunteer with the opposition council, berated Kambi and accused him of lying. Ali said Kambi hit his head on a wall while trying to escape.

I find it interesting that most media outlets choose to deemphaise Gadaffi's importation (and naturalization) of Sub-Saharan African mercenaries coupled with regular mass immigration in recent years and how both are deeply resented by the natives. Should the rebels win, they will use the threat of the former to perhaps justify ethnically cleanse some of the latter as well.

And before anyone says the US would never let them do such a thing, or that the rebels will owe the Western allies something and will therefore abstain from doing this... mind first telling this to 90 000 Kosovo gypsies that where forced to flee their homes?

[MOBIUS]

It is first important to consider that the cry of 'genocide' is an emotive plea that is too often made for the precise motive of encouraging military action when the genuine circumstances are something very different. Governments eager to drum up public support for militaristic over-reactions are highly prone to this, and the value of atrocity-porn propaganda is highly attractive to warmongers seeking to justify their actions when a more sober analysis might rightly conclude that they are, in fact, aggressors attacking a sovereign state.

As I said previously, I was referring to the genocides of Rwanda and Bosnia in particular, thought I accept that I may have allowed that word to 'bleed' into the Libya crisis. OK, let's argue semantics and say that what was prevented by the 11th hour intervention at Benghazi would most likely have been a bloodbath or a massacre - a slaughter maybe...?

Either way, adopting your 'do nothing' policy could have resulted in maybe tens of thousands of civilians losing their lives as Gaddafi first assaulted Benghazi as he had begun to do and, assuming he'd won (the rebels were being routed at that point!), countless revenge attacks and 'disappearances' as he systematically regained control of his country.

Libya is seemingly in a state of civil war where an undoubtedly unpleasant dictator is facing armed opposition and is using unsurprising methods in his attempts to maintain his power. Saddam Hussain demonstrated similar credentials to opposition over his long reign and his behaviour was taken by some, including one Tony Blair plus many others, to provide a sound moral imperative for regime-change. I see little difference between the motives and enthusiasm of Tony Blair to effect change in Iraq, all in the name of sparing the lives of innocent potential victims of the monster, and those painting the Libyan conflict in a similar way.

Yes it is now. But then you are/were advocating allowing Gaddafi to retake control of the whole country as above.

I see the no-fly zone as follows:

1) Avoiding a huge bloodbath in Benghazi and, to a lesser extent, Misurata. Achieved!

2) Degrading Gaddafi's ability to kill his own civilians. Largely achieved!

3) Allowing the rebel govt a breathing space to organise and not get wiped out. Achieved!

The Iraq campaign turned out to be a bloody disaster, as I'm sure most people here would agree, and people are still dying in depressingly large numbers, on a daily basis to this very day. Saddam would have to have been very busy to have inflicted the number of casualties that the Iraq war has tragically precipitated, but it is important to remember that the messianic Tony Blair genuinely believed that he was undertaking an heroic action to spare the lives of innocents and to prevent what he would certainly have considered to be the kind of 'genocide' that people like to pretend they are averting by declaring war on Libya today.

Stating the obvious here: Libya is no Iraq. No one in the West will allow themselves to be bogged down in the same way - because of what happened there.

All the West has to do is stick to the plan and not overreach their currently stated goals. I agree with the Americans involved, that is easier said than done, but as long as we're not putting 'boots on the ground', and avoid dumb stuff like shooting up civilians rescuing your own pilots, I don't really see much of an issue here.

The 'stand idly by' accusation is a cheap and shallow analysis which attempts to paint opponents of dangerous militarism as morally-bankrupt appeasers while ignoring the disastrous track-record of previous interventions which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Those trying to suggest that their support of this militarism is on the side of the angels would do well to carefully consider the catastrophic outcome of the great crusade against Saddam Hussain.

The only cheap and shallow analysis is your attempts to paint this as Iraq 2, which it so patently isn't. It's a lazy and disingenuous frankly, and I expect better of you...

In fact:

[Arguing the Cort Haus way]Clearly by not supporting the no-fly zone, you are an active supporter of vicious dictators like Gaddafi and think nothing of allowing civilians to be slaughtered in genocides and massacres. And you hate Jews.

[/Cort Haus]

[MOBIUS]

I think we should stay out of it. There is not a good track record of interference.

Yep, I bet if a granny was being brutally attacked across the street from you, you'd just walk on by and shrug your shoulders...

Where does it end?

[MOBIUS]

The 'dangerous militarism' accusation is a cheap and shallow analysis which attempts to paint opponents of morally-bankrupt appeasers as babyeaters while ignoring the disastrous track-record of 'idly standing by' which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Exactly.

Military intervention *may* result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians - especially when in the hands of warmongering idiots like Bush and hawkish coterie!

Idly standing by GUARANTEES the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians!!!

OK, people have mentioned Hitler in this thread, so what about if the future allies had intervened when he started illegally rebuilding Germany's armed forces, or when he annexed Sudetenland - or Czechoslovakia as a whole...!?

You see where I'm going with this, don't you...?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

except tha Gaddafi did not exactly kill the people by the thousands yet (ever), that the west is forcing his hand even more to do so, that the west will not interwene "to the end" to actually stop him, and that this whole this is a destruction of a pretty decent country, or even the best one by African standards... and that his threat to anyone except the western encouraged "rebels" is precisely 0.

Sarkimeron will be high on words, and low on action, while American Hussein will be "undecided" as he does not really want another Iraq on his hands, while Gaddafi will have to deal with the rebels "manually" = thousands more dead in addition to the "collateral damage" from rebel allies.

All in all cluster****.

[Arrian]

Well, I think we've each laid out our arguments pretty clearly. Now it's watch & wait time. See how it goes. I sure hope the interventionists are right and this operation will end up, in hindsight, as a success (though of course I will worry that success will make the next Iraq more likely, but that doesn't outweigh preventing massacres).

-Arrian

p.s. Something else I worry about is this: the message it sends to any dictator/authoritarian government that is on the fence about pursuing nukes. Seriously, it's crystal clear now, if it wasn't already (I think it was already) that if you don't have nukes you have a non-zero risk of NATO bombing the **** out of you.

[Egbert]

p.s. Something else I worry about is this: the message it sends to any dictator/authoritarian government that is on the fence about pursuing nukes. Seriously, it's crystal clear now, if it wasn't already (I think it was already) that if you don't have nukes you have a non-zero risk of NATO bombing the **** out of you.

I believe some dude in the North Korean government actually said something to that effect quite recently. Something along the lines of what is happening in Libya shows that NK has been prudent to remain heavily militariosed and to keep it's nukes.

: speculation: I have been wondering for some time if the reason Iran seems so hellbent on developing nukes is to deter the USA. There seems to be a bit of paranoia towards the USA in the Iranian government. :end speculation:

[MOBIUS]

Now on the face of it, it looks like the West has actually chosen sides...

[Whoha]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...027,full.story

"Nobody beat me here," he said in a faint, weary tone. "I have no problems here."

thats right Al Kambi, you tell them you fell down the stairs.

[MOBIUS]

See, this is the problem:

One the one hand, a no-fly zone and air strikes to protect civilians was absolutely necessary to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi. The problem is that the morons just can't help taking sides and engaging in regime change - Libya: Coalition bombing may be in breach of UN resolution's legal limits - Legal expert warns that forces led by Britain, France and the US face 'a moment of danger' in justifying latest strikes

[C0ckney]

dude you must of been the only person who didn't see this coming. of course the 'no fly zone' was the west taking sides in a libya civil war.