On March 25 2011 00:18 dp wrote: I must be missing something because this intervention makes little to no sense. The very idea that Gaddafi would have murdered every man, woman and child in benghazi is funny. Actually, the idea that we are saving civilian lives by extending a civil war in a country is also rather laughable.
What would have happened if we didn't act before he went into benghazi? Easy, Gaddafi forces would have marched into the town, the rebels would disband and this rebellion would already be over.
Would rebel leaders be held accountable? Of course. That is the risk they take upon rebelling. Civilians would be killed. But surely no more than will certainly die from the continued military action.
So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
On March 25 2011 00:46 Pika Chu wrote: About him being fit to rule a country, depends who you're comparing him to . Still for the tenth time i need to remind you that Libya isn't poor, the citizens aren't doing bad, and the country did develop quite much in the last decade. Now compare that to our democratic elected president who's a dictator wannabe and brought our country to such bad conditions and over 80 billion $ foreign debt.
Where do you get this? Because when I google I find that there is high unemployment, very poor education, lots of expats needed for rather simple jobs, an insane rate of corruption, lack of freedom (planned economy, yay!) etc. pp.
For me thats textbook dictatorship, where the dictator and his allies suck up all the profits and growth while the general population have little to no control over their lives as well as no chance to improve their economical situation. Even without the wars and acts of terrorism he did in the past and even without the killing of civilians he did over the years in the recent time, reading from the statistics, I can only assume that he is a very bad leader and there are only a few (Kim comes to mind) who are worse than him.
On March 25 2011 07:41 jello_biafra wrote: So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
Like I said, we will be causing many more civilian and military deaths than would have occurred if he had marched into bengazi. Give me a single reason how this will not be the case. You are being taken in by the sensationalist media blitz.
Also, given past experiences of regime change in the region and around the world, would you say it is a good possibility that whoever controls Libya in the future will be generally the same as Gadaffi?
I understand where you are coming from but watching this unfold is very concerning. The media bias shown is terrible. Notice how the objective has changed as things have progressed. First, we just needed to get out there to stop Gadaffi from marching into bengazi and murdering everyone. US continues to say regime change is not the issue during the beginning. Gotcha.
We destroyed what was needed to enforce the no-fly zone effectively. Overkill or not, I understand the force used. Now following the news, listen to the condescending tone given by reporters about stories of civilian deaths from allied bombing. Once again, I will not say that the stories given by the Libyan media are entirely true.
BUT, given past experience, is it more likely that some civilians were killed during these strikes rather than none? After any story like this, whether it be on BBC, NBC, CNN, FOX, they will continue on with the "no civilian deaths have been independently verified" in a way that says because they have not been verified there are none. We haven't hurt anyone. Nothing to see here.
If you are in marketing or have a good understanding of it, you can tell when you are being sold on something. We continue to be sold on further action. Now that we did this, we need to do that.
Listen when they bring you news from the region, an anonymous person within the rebel held town gives a compelling report. It is normally emotionally driven as opposed to factual. It will give numbers injured or killed, but will not say if they represent rebel casualties or civilian. We are left to let our imaginations run. They will praise the air strikes and ask for more air strikes, as well as additional assistance or else Gadaffi will kill them and their families. They only have light weapons compared to Gadaffis heavily armed army. They need help.
We are being sold on helping the rebels overthrow Gadaffi, not by just enforcing the no fly zone, but by aided the rebel force directly. Listen to how we need to "level the playing field". How without us, the rebels will fail or worse yet, leave a stalemate with the country divided. And it is true.
The vague wording of the UN resolution will allow us to pretty much do whatever we want.
Now back to the original point. This was suppose to be an intervention to prevent civilian deaths. The fact that our intervention *****100%***** will directly/indirectly cause more deaths then us abstaining from interfering means we failed from the beginning.
It is happening much like Iraq, where we continue to change the reasons we do things as perceptions change. Now we need to liberate the Libyan people from an evil dictator. This is not our right. That is why we are sold on things a reasonable person can't say no to. Saving civilians. We aren't told that by doing so, we have no choice but to force Gadaffi to go by any means. Little steps, ya know?
War and death are ugly things, but not the ugliest. Also, who decides what our "rights" are? The entire idea of rights seems very meaningless to me. If outsides countries can make countries better in the long run, even at the cost of civilian death, I think this is a good thing. A good example of this is Iraq.
On March 25 2011 07:41 jello_biafra wrote: So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
Like I said, we will be causing many more civilian and military deaths than would have occurred if he had marched into bengazi. Give me a single reason how this will not be the case. You are being taken in by the sensationalist media blitz.
Also, given past experiences of regime change in the region and around the world, would you say it is a good possibility that whoever controls Libya in the future will be generally the same as Gadaffi?
I understand where you are coming from but watching this unfold is very concerning. The media bias shown is terrible. Notice how the objective has changed as things have progressed. First, we just needed to get out there to stop Gadaffi from marching into bengazi and murdering everyone. US continues to say regime change is not the issue during the beginning. Gotcha.
We destroyed what was needed to enforce the no-fly zone effectively. Overkill or not, I understand the force used. Now following the news, listen to the condescending tone given by reporters about stories of civilian deaths from allied bombing. Once again, I will not say that the stories given by the Libyan media are entirely true.
BUT, given past experience, is it more likely that some civilians were killed during these strikes rather than none? After any story like this, whether it be on BBC, NBC, CNN, FOX, they will continue on with the "no civilian deaths have been independently verified" in a way that says because they have not been verified there are none. We haven't hurt anyone. Nothing to see here.
If you are in marketing or have a good understanding of it, you can tell when you are being sold on something. We continue to be sold on further action. Now that we did this, we need to do that.
Now back to the original point. This was suppose to be an intervention to prevent civilian deaths. The fact that our intervention *****100%***** will directly/indirectly cause more deaths then us abstaining from interfering means we failed from the beginning.
It is happening much like Iraq, where we continue to change the reasons we do things as perceptions change. Now we need to liberate the Libyan people from an evil dictator. This is not our right. That is why we are sold on things a reasonable person can't say no to. Saving civilians. We aren't told that by doing so, we have no choice but to force Gadaffi to go by any means. Little steps, ya know?
You could also explain how you came to your own conclusion. Gadaffi is crazy. He's a delusional old bastard raving in power. To imply that Gadaffi wouldn't have slaughtered a great deal of the eastern half of Libya is a fairly big jump. Just by his speeches you can tell that he isn't quite all "there." He IS a danger to his own people and I'm relatively certain that an intervention will save lives in the long run. That being said I don't entirely agree with the intervention in the first place...
In the end the decision has been made. The real problem is that apparently a lot of people had no idea what a No-Fly zone actually was
I mean the UN initially had the support of the Arab league of nations to institute a no fly zone. So after continuing pressure to do this UN finally caved. THEN people are all up in arms when tomahawk cruise missiles start raining out of the sly.
No Fly zones are military interventions, period. When this was on the table people should have realized what No Fly zones actually entailed before prattling on about it.
No Fly zones mean you systematically destroy an areas ability to field any sort of aircraft. This means bombing anti air batteries, air fields, and air bases. You then pretty much saturate the area with your own jets just to make sure that no other planes are flying in this no fly zone. It is the complete and total dismantling of an air force and the true definition of Air Supremacy.
It's also an act of war. How that's been avoided is beyond me.
The world is more interlaced than ever before so I'm not surprised that the UN intervened in Libya. Going by multiple news sources Gadaffi is actually an insane mother fucker. The fact that he will be gone after this is likely going to save lives in the long term.
That doesn't mean I like the fact that it's all been sugar coated.
On March 25 2011 14:07 dp wrote: Once again, I will not say that the stories given by the Libyan media are entirely true.
Libyan media has told so many lies in the past that we cannot believe a single word from them. Not a single one.
BUT, given past experience, is it more likely that some civilians were killed during these strikes rather than none?
Of course people died. I don't know why you're saying this. It's as obvious as obvious gets.
If you are in marketing or have a good understanding of it, you can tell when you are being sold on something. We continue to be sold on further action. Now that we did this, we need to do that.
And if you're in psychology you get a good understanding of what Ghadaffi thinks? Please.
The fact that our intervention *****100%***** will directly/indirectly cause more deaths then us abstaining from interfering means we failed from the beginning.
And how? Did you know that the west was historically opposed to Tripoli? Do you think that a regime like Ghadaffi's, who didn't hesitate to kill civilians every day, would have left things the way they are? Don't you think he needed to kill all rebels and all supporting families to make sure it didn't happen again? Don't you realize that this possible massacre represents thousands?
It is happening much like Iraq, where we continue to change the reasons we do things as perceptions change.
Nobody asked you to go to Irak. In fact, you invaded Irak for no reason. In fact, France used his veto, but the US knows better. In fact, the international community condemned such a foolish act somehow supported by the American people. It was obvious from day 1 that the reasons of such intervention were bogus. Everyone know, at least around me. Don't compare Libya to the joke Irak was.
On March 25 2011 07:41 jello_biafra wrote: So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
Ok, first post in this thread, my Masters Thesis was written on Foreign Military/Political Intervention in Africa, and will try to carefully choose my words to avoid trolls and flamers... So, if you indeed support US foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War to save civilian lives, then you would also support the same type of intervention in places like the DRC and Somalia, right? From what I've read so far from many of you, it seems like most of you are in agreement that foreign intervention in a civil war is the right thing to do. I guess what I'm trying to ask is: What about the other civil wars where civilians are dying every day (DRC, Somalia, possibly Cote D'Ivoire again etc...). Would you also feel as passionate about intervention for those people who have been experiencing a much longer civil war? DRC and Somalia conflicts have been around for many years and yet there does not seem to be much attention towards them. And please, don't tell me those conflicts are different just because there's a lack of a viable government or there are several rebel groups/insurgents involved. No matter how weak or how many parties involved, there is armed conflict between rebels and the government.
OK, just this one time I will reply to those of you that obvious missed the point of my post. First Kukaracha since you obviously completely overlooked what I wrote and went on a tangent.
Of course people died. I don't know why you're saying this. It's as obvious as obvious gets.
Umm.. exactly?.. That is exactly what I said. My problem is with the way things are reported, in such a way as to say Libyan media lies (like you said), and there are NO DEATHS/INJURIES CONFIRMED and thus no deaths. I simply ask you to listen to news reports on this, and hear bs being pushed.
And if you're in psychology you get a good understanding of what Ghadaffi thinks? Please.
Simply no. Your argument makes no sense. Be intelligent and attack the argument if anything. Don't come at me with nonsense to avoid addressing what I say.
Don't you think he needed to kill all rebels and all supporting families to make sure it didn't happen again? Don't you realize that this possible massacre represents thousands?
No, I don't. That is quite a jump to say the least. This is a popular revolution. Are you arguing that he would kill all those rebels and their families? By your logic he would have to kill off at least half the population of Libya.
Would a bunch of rebels be killed? Sure. There is no doubt of that. If you had read what I wrote, you would understand this fact. The point I made is that intervention will cause more deaths, and that the media is not being open about it. Don't use sensationalist ideas to argue your point. Unless you are arguing that less than thousands will die, while that number has already been reached, I don't see where you are coming from.
And don't bring up Iraq. I only used it to draw parallels in the way the media is currently reporting on Libya.
Jayme - I don't have a problem with your argument besides this.
To imply that Gadaffi wouldn't have slaughtered a great deal of the eastern half of Libya is a fairly big jump.
A great deal is too vague. We intervened because it was being pushed that if gadaffi marched into bengazi, he would basically kill everyone, door to door, men, women and children. Numbers were presented in the likes of 100,000 people killed in this single engagement. And I call bullshit. Saying he is bat shit crazy is not an argument to presume such numbers.
Before it is brought up, yes, I know he came out saying he would go door to door and show no mercy. Dictators use violence, as well as the threat of violence to hold power. He was trying to instill fear to quell a rebellion.
I feel like I am getting off track though, so lets bring this back to my point. I am not arguing for or against intervention, and I apologize if it came off that way. I am simply concerned in the way the media is reporting it. Propaganda is propaganda, whether it is Libyan TV or CNN.
Use PM for any responses, as I don't want to fill this thread up with nonessential arguments.
I'm happy to see a lot of tlers wanting an end to this pointless civil war, Gaddafi should quit because he's not the leader he used to be 30 years ago. But what impresses me is the people who actually support the war "for humanitarian reasons" claiming that Gaddafi was planning to do a massacre on the civilian population, I ask you where are you when unmanned drones kills thousands and thousands of civilians in Iraq, afghanistan and Pakistan? isn't that a massacre or are they terrorists supporters? Comparing what Gaddafi had done to his people is nothing compared to what the US have done in the middle east in the last 10 years. Think again what is a war for humanitarian reasons, to me it is the same thing than fucking for virginity's sake.
On March 25 2011 07:41 jello_biafra wrote: So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
Ok, first post in this thread, my Masters Thesis was written on Foreign Military/Political Intervention in Africa, and will try to carefully choose my words to avoid trolls and flamers... So, if you indeed support US foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War to save civilian lives, then you would also support the same type of intervention in places like the DRC and Somalia, right? From what I've read so far from many of you, it seems like most of you are in agreement that foreign intervention in a civil war is the right thing to do. I guess what I'm trying to ask is: What about the other civil wars where civilians are dying every day (DRC, Somalia, possibly Cote D'Ivoire again etc...). Would you also feel as passionate about intervention for those people who have been experiencing a much longer civil war? DRC and Somalia conflicts have been around for many years and yet there does not seem to be much attention towards them. And please, don't tell me those conflicts are different just because there's a lack of a viable government or there are several rebel groups/insurgents involved. No matter how weak or how many parties involved, there is armed conflict between rebels and the government.
I think a significant part of the reason for the support for Libya vs other nations is the (relative) ease of doing so. Don't get me wrong, i'm of an interventionist bent, and think we should help wherever we can (not that I agree with everywhere we are "helping", but lets ignore both of those arguments to stay on topic). Basically, in a lot of those countries, "helping" would be like vietnam all over again. At least thats how it looks from my relatively uneducated perspective on the matter. In Libya, we're just bombing his hardware that (for the most part) is either out in the open desert, not in a town of forest.
On March 26 2011 01:17 CmdrJAGUAR wrote: Ok, first post in this thread, my Masters Thesis was written on Foreign Military/Political Intervention in Africa, and will try to carefully choose my words to avoid trolls and flamers... So, if you indeed support US foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War to save civilian lives, then you would also support the same type of intervention in places like the DRC and Somalia, right? From what I've read so far from many of you, it seems like most of you are in agreement that foreign intervention in a civil war is the right thing to do. I guess what I'm trying to ask is: What about the other civil wars where civilians are dying every day (DRC, Somalia, possibly Cote D'Ivoire again etc...). Would you also feel as passionate about intervention for those people who have been experiencing a much longer civil war? DRC and Somalia conflicts have been around for many years and yet there does not seem to be much attention towards them. And please, don't tell me those conflicts are different just because there's a lack of a viable government or there are several rebel groups/insurgents involved. No matter how weak or how many parties involved, there is armed conflict between rebels and the government.
Coming from a similar education and having worked for the dutch foreign service in Africa:
The attitude in the Western FP circles is that there is no endgame in the conflicts you mentioned, and that these conflicts are at another level of escalation. Somalia, DRC, Cote D'Ivoire (Darfur in the past) are (possibly going to be) true civil wars, where the conflict is largely tribal and economic in nature, and in none of the countries you mentioned is there a true mass protest movement for democracy. A western intervention in any of these countries would not remove the root cause of the problems (which more often then not was caused by the colonial powers), it would merely 'contain' them as long as there are troops on the ground.
Libya, on the other hand, is regarded as a state repressing a mass-popular uprising, with a clear endgame: Disable the Ghadaffi apparatus and slowly let the rebels take over the entire country. This removes the current cause of the rebellion, and should give the rebels a shot at trying to create a new, modern state.
Not that this is my personal view, but this is how the logic plays out in the Western foreign services. Do I think we should intervene more? Possibly. Do I support an intervention in Somalia/DRC? Not currently, because I don't see an actual party in these conflicts to support and I have no endgame solution. Cote D'Ivoire is a borderline case for me, because the opposition has valid democratic grievances, but even there the underlying cause of the problem is geographic/economical.
(And I love the 'United We Rise-video, great find)
If there actually were civilian casualties you can be sure Gaddafi will bring all the media in Tripoli to film it up close, and also broadcast it non-stop on state tv.
The fact that this has not happened can only mean that there actually were no civilian casualties. I don't see how this means western tv is pushing propaganda. It is also not entirely impossible since this is not the same situation as Iraq or Serbia.
From my point of view CNN, BBC and AlJazeera have all had some very bad reports, but most due to search for a sensational article than pushing an agenda. I remember a time when there were almost no direct reports coming out of Libya and everybody was just relaying libian national tv like they were proven facts (in our press Misrata has already fallen to Gaddafi a few times in the last weeks) while completely ignoring 'unconfirmed' information coming out of social network sites.
We are a nation of war and rebellion. We were born in conquest, rebirthed in rebellion and throughout our short lives carried the flag of War. Americans don't run from a fight, at least not historically. Now, throughout the world, people are rising up and saying "enough". They are fighting against tyrants and dictators and they are willing to die. Which they will, if unaided.
So, we--a war-born nation with a history of democracy through revolution--are faced with a choice: do nothing and watch as people who are as we once were are slaughtered, or join in the fight and try to set them free. This is not just an American idea, either. Keep in mind France helped us to on the road to Freedom.
This is how I see what is happening now. It is going to be bloody. It is not going to be pretty. We as a people need to embrace these facts and accept them. That is who we are. That is what we are. However, it seems we have grown divided. People call for peace. People say we should not enter into war. And they have that right.
That is the beauty of freedom. We have the right to choose. The right to disagree. But always remember, that right was paid for in blood.
All that in mind, it is my belief that we should aid the Libian people. Perhaps not with ground troops, but bombing armored units and aircraft, taking out command centers and providing weapons and (possibly) training to the rebels...these are things I personally feel we SHOULD do.
On March 25 2011 07:41 jello_biafra wrote: So instead of saving the lives of Libyan civilians and furthering the cause of the popular revolution we simply let Gadaffi slaughter them and condemn everyone in Libya to years of further tyrrany?
There's a reason they're fucking rebelling, we stood up for the demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt etc. and didn't have to resort to force because the rulers of these countries (eventually) saw sense and retired, Gadaffi is such a mad old bastard though that he will hang on till the very end.
Ok, first post in this thread, my Masters Thesis was written on Foreign Military/Political Intervention in Africa, and will try to carefully choose my words to avoid trolls and flamers... So, if you indeed support US foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War to save civilian lives, then you would also support the same type of intervention in places like the DRC and Somalia, right? From what I've read so far from many of you, it seems like most of you are in agreement that foreign intervention in a civil war is the right thing to do. I guess what I'm trying to ask is: What about the other civil wars where civilians are dying every day (DRC, Somalia, possibly Cote D'Ivoire again etc...). Would you also feel as passionate about intervention for those people who have been experiencing a much longer civil war? DRC and Somalia conflicts have been around for many years and yet there does not seem to be much attention towards them. And please, don't tell me those conflicts are different just because there's a lack of a viable government or there are several rebel groups/insurgents involved. No matter how weak or how many parties involved, there is armed conflict between rebels and the government.
May I ask why did you single out the U.S.???? While the U.S. economically struggling is still considered the most powerful in the world. But as it is, they are spread too thin to actually do something as you suggested. If they were not involved in Iraq/Afghanistan, there would be quite a bit possibility that they could help out as long as nobody veto's it. The thing that happened to them is that they made a bad decision in Iraq with the Baath party and made them actually stay there 7+ years due to that mistake....Anyway to get back on topic....
As it stands the U.S. is just spread too thin between Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and Asia as they have defense deals with S.Korea/Japan. They just don't have the manpower to deal with it, not to mention there is no way people will allow for another intervention as it's costing the U.S. tons of money.
The question you/we should all be asking is, why are not OTHER countries actually stepping up in their help and not just relying on the U.S. to make things happen....
There really needs to be a lean organization with the financial backing of other nations who can make fast and decisive decision on interventions and war preventions...as the current system is, it's too inefficient and nothing but bureaucratic talk.
Not our problem. There are dozens of terrible dictators in the world (I don't have enough fingers to count the number of them in Africa alone.) The US, UK, the EU, etc... are NOT the world police. We will bankrupt ourselves if we try to be.
Yes Gaddafi is a TERRIBLE leader, but Libya needs to deal with it. The middle east wants us out, they are burning US flags and stomping on pictures of our leaders again. Let's do everyone a favor and leave them alone. If it is oil we're concerned with (in the US) tap into our strategic reserves, drill in ANWAAR, don't screw over companies trying to drill in the gulf.
Whatever we do, don't give weapons to the Libyan rebels... we all remembered what happened when we did that in Afganistan during the 80's... They ended up using our weapons against us 20 years later.
On March 26 2011 07:37 Ironsights wrote: We are a nation of war and rebellion. We were born in conquest, rebirthed in rebellion and throughout our short lives carried the flag of War. Americans don't run from a fight, at least not historically. Now, throughout the world, people are rising up and saying "enough". They are fighting against tyrants and dictators and they are willing to die. Which they will, if unaided.
So, we--a war-born nation with a history of democracy through revolution--are faced with a choice: do nothing and watch as people who are as we once were are slaughtered, or join in the fight and try to set them free. This is not just an American idea, either. Keep in mind France helped us to on the road to Freedom.
This is how I see what is happening now. It is going to be bloody. It is not going to be pretty. We as a people need to embrace these facts and accept them. That is who we are. That is what we are. However, it seems we have grown divided. People call for peace. People say we should not enter into war. And they have that right.
That is the beauty of freedom. We have the right to choose. The right to disagree. But always remember, that right was paid for in blood.
All that in mind, it is my belief that we should aid the Libian people. Perhaps not with ground troops, but bombing armored units and aircraft, taking out command centers and providing weapons and (possibly) training to the rebels...these are things I personally feel we SHOULD do.
And what of the American ideal of self-determination? Let them choose their fate, not make it for them. I don't see the Libyan's ever appreciating our actions there. It will likely end in increased hatred towards the west, and a decade long occupation. The worst thing about this affair is not that we're intervening, but that we do these things with ZERO caution. Its goddamn disgusting. Just another overseas war in something thats none of our goddamn business. Its a never ending cycle. You honestly think our intervention there is going to end in pink roses and freedom for the Libyan people? Yea, I've heard it all before, and I learned to take it with a few gallons of salt. Furthermore, I find it amusing that people are just assuming this is a historic movement for democracy and freedom in the Muslim world. The more likely outcome is an increase in Islamic nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Oh, and another dictator.
On March 26 2011 07:37 Ironsights wrote: We are a nation of war and rebellion. We were born in conquest, rebirthed in rebellion and throughout our short lives carried the flag of War. Americans don't run from a fight, at least not historically. Now, throughout the world, people are rising up and saying "enough". They are fighting against tyrants and dictators and they are willing to die. Which they will, if unaided.
So, we--a war-born nation with a history of democracy through revolution--are faced with a choice: do nothing and watch as people who are as we once were are slaughtered, or join in the fight and try to set them free. This is not just an American idea, either. Keep in mind France helped us to on the road to Freedom.
This is how I see what is happening now. It is going to be bloody. It is not going to be pretty. We as a people need to embrace these facts and accept them. That is who we are. That is what we are. However, it seems we have grown divided. People call for peace. People say we should not enter into war. And they have that right.
That is the beauty of freedom. We have the right to choose. The right to disagree. But always remember, that right was paid for in blood.
All that in mind, it is my belief that we should aid the Libian people. Perhaps not with ground troops, but bombing armored units and aircraft, taking out command centers and providing weapons and (possibly) training to the rebels...these are things I personally feel we SHOULD do.
And what of the American ideal of self-determination? Let them choose their fate, not make it for them. I don't see the Libyan's ever appreciating our actions there. It will likely end in increased hatred towards the west, and a decade long occupation. The worst thing about this affair is not that we're intervening, but that we do these things with ZERO caution. Its goddamn disgusting. Just another overseas war in something thats none of our goddamn business. Its a never ending cycle. You honestly think our intervention there is going to end in pink roses and freedom for the Libyan people? Yea, I've heard it all before, and I learned to take it with a few gallons of salt. Furthermore, I find it amusing that people are just assuming this is a historic movement for democracy and freedom in the Muslim world. The more likely outcome is an increase in Islamic nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Oh, and another dictator.
As towards the ideal of American self-determination: we did not rebel against Britain alone. We had help from Poland (Cachimir Polaski) Germany (Frederick von Stuben) and France (supplies, officers, military units). Americans had the will to fight, but needed help. Sounds like Libya to me, so that argument is invalid. Increased hatred of the West is speculation only, and can be debated and argued over indefinately. Only time will tell. As towards your rant against these rebels: you are right. They may not choose a democracy. They may institute a new dictator and they may became islamic radicals. Alternatively they could set up an Islamic Democracy and leave in a Religious State that happens to be Free. Neither of us know what will happen, so I believe the cynisism in your words is perhaps uncalled for. Ultimately, if I am wrong or you are, these rebels, the voice of the people, will have spoken. We are fighting for choice, and democracy is just that: choices.
Oh, and as towards your statement of us going in with no caution whatsoever...
EPT
. Still for the tenth time i need to remind you that Libya isn't poor, the citizens aren't doing bad, and the country did develop quite much in the last decade. Now compare that to our democratic elected president who's a dictator wannabe and brought our country to such bad conditions and over 80 billion $ foreign debt.
