EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 121
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
DwD
Sweden8621 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 23 2011 01:47 DwD wrote: Not gonna take part in the discussion since zalz can't reply without constantly insulting me. If you feel NATO should have the power to remove regimes whenever they feel like it that's up to you. Gaddaffi was going to commit a massacre. NATO did not stand by and let it happen. They didn't remove a regime because they felt like it, how can you even say that and pretend to know the situation? Did you not watch the news back when it all began? Had NATO not stepped in then thousands would have been lined up and executed. Having a different opinion is all fair game but must you really have a different reality to go along with it? Why can't you defend your opinion whilst acknowledging the reality that Gaddafi was going to commit a massacre and you were okay with that because "government can defend itself at all costs". We'll see if NATO will continue this then since it's perfectly fine to occupy a country and give the power to a rebelforce. Stepping in to prevent mass slaughter? I hope NATO will make a policy of that. But perhaps we just end up on different ends of the spectrum there, i just happen to be very anti-massacre, just the way i was raised i suppose. And I really doubt the Gaddafi supporters were only at 10%. If it was, how come the other side of Lybia isn't advancing with a big rebelforce from the other side of Tripoli? It's been the same force since day1 pushing forward. And it's quite clear that Gaddafi support is at an all time low now. Why? Because if you would claim to be pro Gaddafi in Tripoli today you would get killed by the rebels. Because that's how battle lines work...anyone that wanted to fight Gaddaffi would have to meet up with the main rebel force or goes solo rambo. Most people prefer to fight a war as part of an army, tends to even the odds. The rapid advance on Tripoli should prove enough that Gaddafi had no support. It all came falling down when the rebels got close enough and the city itself turned on their dictator. Did the rebel stronghold fall apart when Gaddaffi was lined outside the city with this tanks? | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/07/14/belgische-ministers-ontwijken-vragen-over-uraniumwapens-in-libi Its a news report how supposedly they have been using uranium enriched bombs (which they always have been doing) How is that in line with protecting civilians? can you explain me the logic of purposely poisoning the ground people have to life on after this whole ordeal how that is protecting the population. Because my brain sure cant figure out that one.... | ||
|
Fattah
Egypt128 Posts
| ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
On August 23 2011 06:57 Fattah wrote: NATO good people. Prevent Libya massacre. Allow Syria massacre. NATO gets bitched at for stepping in to other countries problems and then bitched at when they don't. Can't look to NATO all the time to handle other countries issues... | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6641 Posts
On August 23 2011 06:57 Fattah wrote: NATO good people. Prevent Libya massacre. Allow Syria massacre. Syria is a completely different situation, there is no active armed rebellion there to support. | ||
|
Fattah
Egypt128 Posts
| ||
|
Fattah
Egypt128 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:06 jello_biafra wrote: Syria is a completely different situation, there is no active armed rebellion there to support. Getting involved in civil war? Taking sides? More politics!!! | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
(I'm not ignoring what is happening in Syria or trying to downplay it, I apologize that I sound crass I just think that to instigate a civil war and to help Libyans in theirs are very different) | ||
|
hookyelyak
Egypt184 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:11 Fattah wrote: Getting involved in civil war? Taking sides? More politics!!! Would it make you feel better to think of it like this; there are a finite number of resources to commit, and Lybia beat Syria to the punch? No? Well, welcome to the real world where everything isn't perfect. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:21 Bibdy wrote: Would it make you feel better to think of it like this; there are a finite number of resources to commit, and Lybia beat Syria to the punch? No? Well, welcome to the real world where everything isn't perfect. If you're looking at it from a "finite resources" POV, having NATO supply malaria blankets and condoms to Africa for the next century would have saved ten times the lives at less than half the cost. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:24 acker wrote: If you're looking at it from a "finite resources" POV, having NATO supply malaria blankets and condoms to Africa for the next century would have saved ten times the lives at less than half the cost. My rebuttal to that is simply; different problems, different priorities, different resources. I'm not sure how the aid NATO is giving to the rebels would be the least bit helpful to people dying of Malaria and AIDS in Africa. "Here's some ammunition and radios you can use for communication. Good luck with those diseases!". You're assuming all of NATOs assets are easily liquidated. Like there's a big pile of cash just sitting around waiting to be directed to each new problem. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:40 Bibdy wrote: My rebuttal to that is simply; different problems, different priorities, different resources. I'm not sure how the aid NATO is giving to the rebels would be the least bit helpful to people dying of Malaria and AIDS in Africa...You're assuming all of NATOs assets are easily liquidated. Like there's a big pile of cash just sitting around waiting to be directed to each new problem. I'm not sure how much thought you put into this answer. Money NATO spends in Libya is money NATO has to take from something else later on. The same would have been true if NATO had purchased mosquito nets instead of firing missiles. The only way this cannot be true is if you think NATO will not restock on missiles, fuel, and services after they're done intervening in Libya. In which case, only the cost of service and not the cost of the stuff they're throwing has to be taken into account. Which is still more expensive than saving lives through basic humanitarian measures. Hell, even if NATO had to borrow money for more mundane....intervention....the interest rate paid would have to be higher than that on junk bonds to still cost more per life than the current intervention. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:24 acker wrote: If you're looking at it from a "finite resources" POV, having NATO supply malaria blankets and condoms to Africa for the next century would have saved ten times the lives at less than half the cost. And neither of those admirable goals are in line with the purpose of NATO, or at least the purpose to which the organization has now been employed. NATO uses armed force to attempt to maintain stability in Europe and around the Med Sea, not sing Kumbaya and hand out mosquito nets. NATO intervenes in situations like Kosovo and Libya and is not (should not) be employed for other uses for which other agencies are available. Libya offered (offers) a far better use of limited NATO resources with regards to the missions that particular entity undertakes; on the other hand, Syria completely lacks the strong armed insurgency and mass army defections that Libya had. It's not a question of finite resources overall, it's a question of where is an intervention most likely to result in the ousting of an oppressive dictator and where said intervention is most likely achieved. Libya, not Syria, meets these hopeful standards. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 07:59 Elegy wrote: And neither of those admirable goals are in line with the purpose of NATO, or at least the purpose to which the organization has now been employed. NATO uses armed force to attempt to maintain stability in Europe and around the Med Sea, not sing Kumbaya and hand out mosquito nets. NATO intervenes in situations like Kosovo and Libya and is not (should not) be employed for other uses for which other agencies are available. Libya offered (offers) a far better use of limited NATO resources with regards to the missions that particular entity undertakes; on the other hand, Syria completely lacks the strong armed insurgency and mass army defections that Libya had. It's not a question of finite resources overall, it's a question of where is an intervention most likely to result in the ousting of an oppressive dictator and where said intervention is most likely achieved. Libya, not Syria, meets these hopeful standards Actually, NATO does do a substantial amount of humanitarian aid work. If NATO is interested in primarily saving lives, it's the composition of NATO that requires thought, not NATO's interventions. Once again, regardless of NATO's composition, it could still have saved more lives by pouring that money into basic human aid instead of military action. Narrowing NATO's potential actions to "overthrowing dictatorships" is stupid, and ignores the costs associated with such actions. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:10 Bibdy wrote: Should they do what they can at the moment of crisis, or just sit back and watch Ghaddafi slaughter untold thousands in the streets of Tripoli while feeling good about all the extra blankets and condoms it distributed to Africa that month? This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you can save ten lives or one life with the same resources, what do you do? No one feels good about mundane, simple actions. But they're certainly more efficient. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:12 acker wrote: If you can save ten lives or one life with action, what do you do? You take that gun and shoot the baby in the square in the face to save the entire human race from destruction. I assume this is the moral question we're marching towards, yes? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 23 2011 08:14 Bibdy wrote: You take that gun and shoot the baby in the square in the face to save the entire human race from destruction. I assume this is the moral question we're marching towards, yes? No, just common sense. Though now that you mention it, children are, as a whole, more affected by disease and malnutrition than Tomahawk missiles. I'm not against the war due to somewhat more complicated reasons. I'm ambivalent about the whole thing, though I might slightly lean towards intervention and I'm certainly hoping it goes well. But I'm not stupid enough to think we're involved out of the goodness in our hearts. | ||
| ||
