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...
The French we're fighting a common enemy so it made sense for them. Its when a country says they want to help people out of the goodness of their heart, through military intervention, that the fascist alarm bells start ringing for me. I'm not speculating anything because i'm not arguing certainties. I'm the one not speculating because I'm advocating non-intervention. As for my "rant" against the rebels, I support them whole heartedly. They have every right to hang that fucker. And choice. Yes, the right to choose, thats what its all about. Hence my position. Choice is why THEY are fighting, not us. We're fighting for reasons that will likely strip them of their choice. We'll demand all sorts of things after their revolution is over. We'll demand influence in their government, and I will be ashamed.
Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
On March 26 2011 16:50 vetinari wrote: Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
German politicians think the other way around: tomorrow there are 2 important elections, and thats why our government decided to "completely support the goals of the UN resolution" and therefore abstained in the UN. Getting involved in another confilct is highly unpopular in germany and would suerly loose you the next election, even if was a good thing to do. I mean, the people in Lybia where asking for international support, so there is absolutely no reason not to help them.
On March 26 2011 16:50 vetinari wrote: Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
German politicians think the other way around: tomorrow there are 2 important elections, and thats why our government decided to "completely support the goals of the UN resolution" and therefore abstained in the UN. Getting involved in another confilct is highly unpopular in germany and would suerly loose you the next election, even if was a good thing to do. I mean, the people in Lybia where asking for international support, so there is absolutely no reason not to help them.
Yeah, thats true. German support for foreign interventions plunged in the wake of the fuel tanker bombing in afghanistan.
On March 26 2011 16:50 vetinari wrote: Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
I've heard it all before. Risk-free? Laughable. Costs peanuts? Just like Iraq. Easy? Unfortunately, else people would actually show reservation. Popular? For a year or so. Right thing to do? Skeptical. Believe me when I say I hope I am wrong, but I strongly feel you will look back on this day with bile in your mouth. Always assume nefarious motives when it comes to government officials, regardless of whether you believe they exist. Theres no risk in doing so, and colossal risk in not doing so.
On March 26 2011 17:14 mstan wrote: Since many are aguing that the libians were not asking or do not support the intervention, here is a video of a support rally in Benghazi
On March 26 2011 16:50 vetinari wrote: Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
I've heard it all before. Risk-free? Laughable. Costs peanuts? Just like Iraq. Easy? Unfortunately, else people would actually show reservation. Popular? For a year or so. Right thing to do? Skeptical. Believe me when I say I hope I am wrong, but I strongly feel you will look back on this day with bile in your mouth. Always assume nefarious motives when it comes to government officials, regardless of whether you believe they exist. Theres no risk in doing so, and colossal risk in not doing so. Edit: And if they don't have nefarious motives, they could simply just fuck it up. I find that more probable than not.
Always assume nefarious motives when it comes to government officials, regardless of whether you believe they exist. Theres no risk in doing so, and colossal risk in not doing so.
Do you happen to be aware of the fact that government officals are actually human beings? They aren't aliens that are inherently evil.
Always assuming nefarious motives means being paranoid and being wrong most of the time so i would call that a risk.
On March 26 2011 16:50 vetinari wrote: Remember that countries are run by politicians and they like being re-elected. The intervention is an almost risk-free way of boost poll numbers while doing "the right thing". It costs peanuts, its easy, its popular, and its actually the right thing to do.
It is wise to be wary of ulterior motives, but remember that it is paranoid to assume nefarious motives.
German politicians think the other way around: tomorrow there are 2 important elections, and thats why our government decided to "completely support the goals of the UN resolution" and therefore abstained in the UN. Getting involved in another confilct is highly unpopular in germany and would suerly loose you the next election, even if was a good thing to do. I mean, the people in Lybia where asking for international support, so there is absolutely no reason not to help them.
To abstain does not imply a lack of whole-hearted support. If you're not vetoing, it's equivalent to voting yes, unless nobody votes yes.
On March 27 2011 03:13 mstan wrote: Woman burst into Tripoli hotel and tells journalists there of her torture and rape before being dragged away by plain-clothes policeman
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'm struggling to decide if you're serious with this post. You wrote your thesis on intervention in Africa and you don't see the difference between intervening in Lybia and the DRC? The intervention in Lybia has a relatively good chance of being successful. If we're lucky we're going to see a democratic Lybia at the cost of a short military campaign and some economic assistance.
The only way to successfully intervene in the DRC would be to ocupy the country and rebuild it basically from scratch. We're talking about a population of 70 million with one of the lowest per capita GDP in the world. It would much worse than Afghanistan. The level of commitment is far beyond what is politically acceptable.
So yeah, it makes sense to support intervention where it has a good chance of working and not where it doesn't.
French warplanes destroy five Libyan planes and two helicopters on ground at Misurata airport, reports Reuters, quoting spokesman.
Also still no word on what happened to the woman who said she was raped.
Watching that video made me want to fly to Libya and kill Gaddafi myself. It wasn't even the rape itself that makes me outraged - its wartime, atrocities are unavoidable. But the fact that she was pulled away despite the objections of the journalists means that Gaddafi is trying to cover it up.
Wonder what is going on in reality this time. The gaining and losing of cities doesn't really tell me much.
For all we know Gaddafi is moving all his forces back into Tripoli wich houses a substantial portion of the population (1/3rd) and in wich his tanks etc are reasonably shielded from air and missile strikes.
Given the footage i have seen the rebels are still utterly unorganized, just like before there seems to be no order at all, just people grabbing guns and driving towards the frontline.
Given the footage i have seen the rebels are still utterly unorganized, just like before there seems to be no order at all, just people grabbing guns and driving towards the frontline.
Muammar doesn't have enough men to withstand a popular uprising in the city and rebels outside the walls trying to get in. His total military personnel number like 50,000, some of them defected, and only some of them, 5,000 - 10,000, were considered 100% loyal and as such were well-trained and well-equipped. A lot of those guys and their gear are burnt useless bloody bits now.
I'm sure we're talking to the rebels and hopefully we'll just give them cover to take the rest of the country and surround Tripoli and Qaddafi will fall one way or another then.
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?
I hope you didn't get your Master's Thesis writing up endless debater's points (not a good thing) like that question there. But then again the way some parts of academia are...
EPT
