And since we don't protect civilians elsewhere (Syria, and many other places), and the only reason for this resolution was that those nations asked for it .... we really, really, shouldn't be in involved.
I don't disagree that mission creep has spread like it always does, but the argument "we don't protect civilians everywhere..." as an argument against doing it somewhere has always seemed really weak to me. It is repugnant to the human mind to believe that nothing should be done because everything can't be done. Of course that isn't what people mean when they use that argument, they are making accusations of hypocrisy more than anything else. It still doesn't make sense to me.
If we hadn't started bombing thousands maybe tens of thousands would be dead in a Qaddafi-led bloodbath already.
If we hadn't stepped up bombing then the civil war would already be in a bloody stalemate that could have lasted for years and years with again thousands or tens of thousands dying.
What we're doing is deciding that now that we have permission to use force, we'll use this to get rid of a regime we don't like. The resolution specifically asks for a cease fire and the need to find an acceptable solution - which obviously means that no solution where Ghadaffi isn't taken out and removed from power can be accepted (according to UK, France, USA).
According to the Libyan rebels too.
We are not doing what we were given permission to do. And we asked for permission to get involved - not like the other countries asked us to. We had to go ask them for permission because we wanted to get involved.
Russia and China and their various cronies sniping at the operation as part of their ongoing third world propaganda tour doesn't really concern me, they were never behind the mission and only agreed to the security council resolution to not get vilified in the world press for turning a blind eye to a dictator using his military against his own people (Russia and China and their cronies are understandably sensitive about this kind of criticism).
I don't really see how we are going beyond the scope of the resolution, it's obvious that keeping Qaddafi in power would result in him massacring civilians at will again.
What we're doing is deciding that now that we have permission to use force, we'll use this to get rid of a regime we don't like.
I think that anyone who thought that there would be a way to use force but stop short of trying to take out Qaddafi's government is either foolish or naive. You can't separate the two. The only reason the Security Council Resolution said otherwise was to get Russia and China to vote for it or abstain. It should have been obvious from the start that using any force at all meant marrying ourselves to the rebels and their objective - removing Qaddafi.
Don't be disappointed that NATO is going beyond the letter of the resolution - they are certainly following the spirit of it.
Haven't found any videos from western media (surprise, surprise), but yesterday was the green day in Tripoli, with about 400,000 Gaddafi supporters marching on the streets and demanding from NATO to end it's aggression.
The government pays people to protest. From what I've been reading most of Tripoli hates Qaddafi too they're just too scared of being slaughtered to rise up and are waiting for the rest of the country to come help them.
On June 20 2011 19:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: If we hadn't started bombing thousands maybe tens of thousands would be dead in a Qaddafi-led bloodbath already.
If we hadn't stepped up bombing then the civil war would already be in a bloody stalemate that could have lasted for years and years with again thousands or tens of thousands dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war#Duration_of_civil_wars On average, a civil war with interstate intervention was 300% longer than those without. When disaggregated, a civil war with intervention on only one side is 156% longer ------------- So yeah, thousands maybe tens of thousands ARE dying now. That's not a great argument for intervention. Ghadaffi is old, he would have died off soon anyway.
By interfering, we are lengthening the civil war, increasing casualties.
On June 20 2011 19:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: According to the Libyan rebels too.
Which is fine, except that the resolution explicitly says that one should try to get a peaceful resolution and a ceasefire - which Ghadaffi wanted, but the rebels didn't because they saw a weakening and an opening to win. So we are ignoring the resolution.
On June 20 2011 19:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't really see how we are going beyond the scope of the resolution, it's obvious that keeping Qaddafi in power would result in him massacring civilians at will again.
That may be obvious to you but ... 1) He didn't the last time there was civil war brewing in that area. 2) He hadn't, unless you count those actively attacking his soldiers (and hanging them etc), before this stuff started. 3) The rebels are just shooting people out of hand if they are suspected of being Ghadaffi spies as well ... it seems established practice in the region. Proof isn't really something they care much about.
As for going beyond the resolution ... I doubt many nations that voted for it saw "protecting civilians" as bombing areas that are loyal to Ghadaffi ... no matter where they are, or if there's unrest in those areas at all.
Now, I hope Ghadaffi dies tomorrow, and he is no doubt an oppressive tyrant, but this was just stupid to be involved in. He was actually helping europe the last decade to prevent immigrants from africa ...
UN Security Council anyone? Like it or not, the UNSC is the "world police," that's what it was set up to do, that's what it does, it was "elected" by all the countries of the world that have signed the UN charter. It's the only body in the world that can give legal permission for war except in cases of self-defence.
The UN Security Council was never elected. It was appointed by decree by the winners of WWII.
This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
Give me one country that NATO has "conquered" as you put it.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
You should probably read the UN charter.
Or read up on justifications for doing this kind of action. It's not illegal or illegitimate. Especially not just because you say it is.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
hah. Gaddafi killing civilians is legitimate...I see. So if he starts massacring his own people, thats perfectly fine because its legitimate. You're also making a bunch of baseless accusations about imperialism and political agendas, which have been shot down repeatedly on this thread.
So what, if we saw another episode of the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur, we should just let it happen? You think the accidental casualties of mistargeted bombs are worth the hundreds if not thousands of lives that would be lost otherwise? How can you just say the lives of tens of thousands of people don't matter, just because they don't live in your country? What happened to being a humanitarian?
I seriously hope this problem gets solved before it turns into an embarrassment for the NATO. The US is now complaining about how the European allies are not putting enough help in the air strikes.
This is pretty sad. First of all they rebel and get beat and Gaddafi starts killing civs. Then Nato joins... and kills civs. Honestly there isn't much of a solution, especially if Gaddafi has this many supporters that he's still fighting, it seems like NATO is just supporting a small group, are the rebels majority?
I honestly don't understand the situation but all the news is pretty bias.
On June 28 2011 20:13 Mykill wrote: This is pretty sad. First of all they rebel and get beat and Gaddafi starts killing civs. Then Nato joins... and kills civs. Honestly there isn't much of a solution, especially if Gaddafi has this many supporters that he's still fighting, it seems like NATO is just supporting a small group, are the rebels majority?
I honestly don't understand the situation but all the news is pretty bias.
The killing of civis is inevitable since airstrikes are being carried out
On June 28 2011 20:13 Mykill wrote: This is pretty sad. First of all they rebel and get beat and Gaddafi starts killing civs. Then Nato joins... and kills civs. Honestly there isn't much of a solution, especially if Gaddafi has this many supporters that he's still fighting, it seems like NATO is just supporting a small group, are the rebels majority?
I honestly don't understand the situation but all the news is pretty bias.
Sad as it may be there must exist a certain acceptable casualty rate for war.
We should seek to avoid war in all cases but when it does come to war, avoid as many casualties as possible. We can't however pretend like wars can ever be fought without killing innocents, nor can we pretend that never waging war is an option, not in the world we inhabit today.
If the NATO is not doing it's utmost best to avoid the death of innocents then they can be held accountable for that but is that really the case? The first few weeks all airstrike victims turned out to be a hoax, god knows that if there were any real ones Gaddafi would have mounted them on top of the walls to show the world.
I don't know the exact number of casualties but from what i hear they are well within a reasonable margin given the fact that these kind of regime's build their military infrastructure intwined with civillian infrastructure.
On June 28 2011 20:13 Mykill wrote: This is pretty sad. First of all they rebel and get beat and Gaddafi starts killing civs. Then Nato joins... and kills civs. Honestly there isn't much of a solution, especially if Gaddafi has this many supporters that he's still fighting, it seems like NATO is just supporting a small group, are the rebels majority?
I honestly don't understand the situation but all the news is pretty bias.
Sad as it may be there must exist a certain acceptable casualty rate for war.
We should seek to avoid war in all cases but when it does come to war, avoid as many casualties as possible. We can't however pretend like wars can ever be fought without killing innocents, nor can we pretend that never waging war is an option, not in the world we inhabit today.
If the NATO is not doing it's utmost best to avoid the death of innocents then they can be held accountable for that but is that really the case? The first few weeks all airstrike victims turned out to be a hoax, god knows that if there were any real ones Gaddafi would have mounted them on top of the walls to show the world.
I don't know the exact number of casualties but from what i hear they are well within a reasonable margin given the fact that these kind of regime's build their military infrastructure intwined with civillian infrastructure.
Reasonable margin... Hoho, it's pretty easy to say that from the comfort of Western Europe isn't it?
On June 28 2011 20:13 Mykill wrote: This is pretty sad. First of all they rebel and get beat and Gaddafi starts killing civs. Then Nato joins... and kills civs. Honestly there isn't much of a solution, especially if Gaddafi has this many supporters that he's still fighting, it seems like NATO is just supporting a small group, are the rebels majority?
I honestly don't understand the situation but all the news is pretty bias.
Sad as it may be there must exist a certain acceptable casualty rate for war.
We should seek to avoid war in all cases but when it does come to war, avoid as many casualties as possible. We can't however pretend like wars can ever be fought without killing innocents, nor can we pretend that never waging war is an option, not in the world we inhabit today.
If the NATO is not doing it's utmost best to avoid the death of innocents then they can be held accountable for that but is that really the case? The first few weeks all airstrike victims turned out to be a hoax, god knows that if there were any real ones Gaddafi would have mounted them on top of the walls to show the world.
I don't know the exact number of casualties but from what i hear they are well within a reasonable margin given the fact that these kind of regime's build their military infrastructure intwined with civillian infrastructure.
Reasonable margin... Hoho, it's pretty easy to say that from the comfort of Western Europe isn't it?
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
Give me one country that NATO has "conquered" as you put it.
Before the end of the Cold War, NATO was a defensive pact. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it became an aggressive alliance defending Western interests. I have no problem with defending the West and its values, but I disagree with violently and arbitrarily engaging in conflict with sovereign states for the sake of expanding spheres of influence. The idea that NATO defends democracy and human rights is only true in that it provides a convenient excuse to attack others. Protecting innocent people is the secondary agenda; expansion of power is their primary concern.
Having said this, in answer to your question, the majority of NATO military involvement has followed this basic pattern of conquest through the rhetoric of defending democracy, the people, the civilians and whatever else, when in reality this is sold as propaganda to the public to hide the aggressive expansionist agenda of NATO. To be more specific, I am referring to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. In particular, I am most concerned with the attack on Libya, because it seems to be the most arbitrary of them all. Yugoslavia went through genocide, and the Taliban regime supported Al Qaeda which attacked America, so, to some extent, a more reasonable argument can be made why there exists extra priority to attack another nation based on moral (Yugoslavia) and revengeful (Afghanistan) grounds. So NATO has "conquered" these nations into obedience through its demonstration of strength and complete disrespect for their authority to exist as independent sovereign states. I understand, by the strictest definition they did not "conquer" them, but strategically they did.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
You should probably read the UN charter.
Or read up on justifications for doing this kind of action. It's not illegal or illegitimate. Especially not just because you say it is.
Can you be more specific? Which aspect of the charter do you want me to look at? I concede that you may be right if the Libyan government had agreed to certain U.N. protocols previously. In that case, I might have to reconsider my position.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
hah. Gaddafi killing civilians is legitimate...I see. So if he starts massacring his own people, thats perfectly fine because its legitimate. You're also making a bunch of baseless accusations about imperialism and political agendas, which have been shot down repeatedly on this thread.
So what, if we saw another episode of the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur, we should just let it happen? You think the accidental casualties of mistargeted bombs are worth the hundreds if not thousands of lives that would be lost otherwise? How can you just say the lives of tens of thousands of people don't matter, just because they don't live in your country? What happened to being a humanitarian?
Firstly, you mentioned that several of my claims have been "shot down" in this thread. I would be interested to read about this, and I am new to this thread. Do you have a link to some such criticisms? Now in answer to your questions...
The situation in Libya is civil war; Gaddafi/Libya vs. Libyan Rebels. To say that Gaddafi is "massacring his people" is wrong; he is fighting to legitimize his authority as leader of the country. And likewise, the people are fighting to overturn his legitimacy and authority and replace it with an alternative system. The way I see it: there are two parties trying to establish their version of the legitimate government. I favor a democratic system, but I dislike the idea of Westerners staring down at these people (who have had little experience with democracy in the first place) and preparing to impose this upon them. We must, as outsiders, with little understanding of the internal dynamics of Libya, treat the rebels and Gaddafi with equal legitimacy, until one party establishes an undisputed government, and because they have come out stronger, we should consider them only then as the true legitimate government.
As far as I am aware, there is no genocide, no mass atrocity, no grotesque destruction of humanity. Gaddafi is not going around killing innocent civilians "for fun" or because he holds some insane ideology in mind. The civilians that have been killed by Gadaffi forces died either as "collateral damage", or because Gadaffi is trying to get to upper hand over the rebels and resorting to measures which are not exactly fair on the civilians. I dislike this, but why must we sit on a high chairs and stare down at Gadaffi accusing him of war crimes and all this other nonsense. We could do this, but it would be hypocrisy, for the U.S. and NATO have committed these same acts of injustice in the past 10 years. I shouldn't even need to mention the numerous acts of violence perpetrated on civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likewise with Guantanimo, and don't forget the actual legality of invading Iraq. The list goes on...
When there is genocide, when there is a mass atrocity, and when there is a grotesque destruction of humanity, then I do think the west needs to be a "humanitarian" as you put it. However, by that same token, the West does not have the moral responsibility to act. I think they should in such a circumstance, but to say it is a moral responsibility can lead to rash decisions. By this I am referring to the Western moral hubris of thinking that Western democracy, values, etc are superior to everything else. This arrogance does no one any good. So to answer your question about an episode of genocide in Libya like Rwanda and Darfur: I wouldn't complain if the West intervened, though I would still be skeptical and cautious. In the present situation there is no such serious threat and the Libyan people should determine their future in their own right. The West has no right to intervene.
----------
Finally, my views can be best summed up by Putin, here,
TRIPOLI — NATO was not involved in a French airlift of weapons to Libyan rebels, the alliance's chief said on Thursday, sharpening differences over how far Western powers should go to oust Muammar Gaddafi.
France on Wednesday became the first NATO country to openly acknowledge arming rebels seeking to topple Gaddafi, who has resisted an uprising against his rule that has turned into the bloodiest of the "Arab Spring" revolts sweeping the region.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
Give me one country that NATO has "conquered" as you put it.
Before the end of the Cold War, NATO was a defensive pact. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it became an aggressive alliance defending Western interests. I have no problem with defending the West and its values, but I disagree with violently and arbitrarily engaging in conflict with sovereign states for the sake of expanding spheres of influence. The idea that NATO defends democracy and human rights is only true in that it provides a convenient excuse to attack others. Protecting innocent people is the secondary agenda; expansion of power is their primary concern.
Having said this, in answer to your question, the majority of NATO military involvement has followed this basic pattern of conquest through the rhetoric of defending democracy, the people, the civilians and whatever else, when in reality this is sold as propaganda to the public to hide the aggressive expansionist agenda of NATO. To be more specific, I am referring to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. In particular, I am most concerned with the attack on Libya, because it seems to be the most arbitrary of them all. Yugoslavia went through genocide, and the Taliban regime supported Al Qaeda which attacked America, so, to some extent, a more reasonable argument can be made why there exists extra priority to attack another nation based on moral (Yugoslavia) and revengeful (Afghanistan) grounds. So NATO has "conquered" these nations into obedience through its demonstration of strength and complete disrespect for their authority to exist as independent sovereign states. I understand, by the strictest definition they did not "conquer" them, but strategically they did.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
You should probably read the UN charter.
Or read up on justifications for doing this kind of action. It's not illegal or illegitimate. Especially not just because you say it is.
Can you be more specific? Which aspect of the charter do you want me to look at? I concede that you may be right if the Libyan government had agreed to certain U.N. protocols previously. In that case, I might have to reconsider my position.
On June 28 2011 01:14 Ciraxis wrote: This official war crime accusation is ridiculous. The international community has no right to intervene in internal conflict within a sovereign state unless it directly effects them. NATO's air strikes was already a grave act of injustice, and now this? To see the flag of 'human rights' raised for the hidden purpose of NATO's political agenda that is 21st century imperialism is a total hypocrisy. I am disgusted that the West is so quick to launch wars under the banner of 'human rights', when in reality, these wars turn out to be long, pointless wars of conquest and colonialism. It is an irony that NATO illegally intervenes in a civil war and then lashes accusations of war crimes, when they themselves illegally involved themselves and illegally killed civilians in the name of 'human rights'. I do care that Gaddafi is killing civilians, but at least he is doing it within the framework of a legitimate conflict, which he legitimately entered into.
hah. Gaddafi killing civilians is legitimate...I see. So if he starts massacring his own people, thats perfectly fine because its legitimate. You're also making a bunch of baseless accusations about imperialism and political agendas, which have been shot down repeatedly on this thread.
So what, if we saw another episode of the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur, we should just let it happen? You think the accidental casualties of mistargeted bombs are worth the hundreds if not thousands of lives that would be lost otherwise? How can you just say the lives of tens of thousands of people don't matter, just because they don't live in your country? What happened to being a humanitarian?
Firstly, you mentioned that several of my claims have been "shot down" in this thread. I would be interested to read about this, and I am new to this thread. Do you have a link to some such criticisms? Now in answer to your questions...
The situation in Libya is civil war; Gaddafi/Libya vs. Libyan Rebels. To say that Gaddafi is "massacring his people" is wrong; he is fighting to legitimize his authority as leader of the country. And likewise, the people are fighting to overturn his legitimacy and authority and replace it with an alternative system. The way I see it: there are two parties trying to establish their version of the legitimate government. I favor a democratic system, but I dislike the idea of Westerners staring down at these people (who have had little experience with democracy in the first place) and preparing to impose this upon them. We must, as outsiders, with little understanding of the internal dynamics of Libya, treat the rebels and Gaddafi with equal legitimacy, until one party establishes an undisputed government, and because they have come out stronger, we should consider them only then as the true legitimate government.
As far as I am aware, there is no genocide, no mass atrocity, no grotesque destruction of humanity. Gaddafi is not going around killing innocent civilians "for fun" or because he holds some insane ideology in mind. The civilians that have been killed by Gadaffi forces died either as "collateral damage", or because Gadaffi is trying to get to upper hand over the rebels and resorting to measures which are not exactly fair on the civilians. I dislike this, but why must we sit on a high chairs and stare down at Gadaffi accusing him of war crimes and all this other nonsense. We could do this, but it would be hypocrisy, for the U.S. and NATO have committed these same acts of injustice in the past 10 years. I shouldn't even need to mention the numerous acts of violence perpetrated on civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likewise with Guantanimo, and don't forget the actual legality of invading Iraq. The list goes on...
When there is genocide, when there is a mass atrocity, and when there is a grotesque destruction of humanity, then I do think the west needs to be a "humanitarian" as you put it. However, by that same token, the West does not have the moral responsibility to act. I think they should in such a circumstance, but to say it is a moral responsibility can lead to rash decisions. By this I am referring to the Western moral hubris of thinking that Western democracy, values, etc are superior to everything else. This arrogance does no one any good. So to answer your question about an episode of genocide in Libya like Rwanda and Darfur: I wouldn't complain if the West intervened, though I would still be skeptical and cautious. In the present situation there is no such serious threat and the Libyan people should determine their future in their own right. The West has no right to intervene.
----------
Finally, my views can be best summed up by Putin, here,
EPT
