No Fly zones over Libya?

[egslim]

Military intervention that does not involve occupation is the best course at this point. If the revolt succedes and we are in country, we look like we started it for our own ends. If it all goes sour while we are there, it looks like our fault.

Supposedly, we are involved for humanitarian reasons. So give them the help they ask for and no more. Doing more would look like we were trying to run the operation, and that will give the next tin horn to face a revolt evidence that the revolt is not home-grown.

What if the situation now develops into a stalemate? Or the rebels turn violent against the loyalists? Or after Gadaffi is gone the country falls apart in tribal warfare?

There is no exit-strategy in case the situation goes sour in some way.

 

[Stout]

Military intervention that does not involve occupation is the best course at this point. If the revolt succedes and we are in country, we look like we started it for our own ends. If it all goes sour while we are there, it looks like our fault.

Supposedly, we are involved for humanitarian reasons. So give them the help they ask for and no more. Doing more would look like we were trying to run the operation, and that will give the next tin horn to face a revolt evidence that the revolt is not home-grown.

It should be a done deal by now...right ?

No fly zone in place...check
Message sent to dictators that the west won't tolerate military force against civilians...check.

I can't see any reason for western boots on the ground.

 

[egslim]

Western powers had no other choice but to accept and commit to the protesters, because despite all our little interests, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, from our moral perspective, they were right to do what they did.

Argh, this is terrible.

These moral interventions by the West have nothing to do with morality, they're a matter of media-exposure. Conflicts without media-exposure are ignored, those in the spotlight considered for intervention.

The media select and spin stories in such a way to appeal to their audience. That means they invariably paint conflicts as a simple fight between good and evil, preferably with the good guys as the underdog.

But in reality most conflicts in this world are between nasty and nasty, and often more than two sides are involved. So the media ignore the conflicts that refuse to be painted as good vs evil, and spin those that do to a nice kindergarten-story level.

The story from Libya is spun as a democratic revolution against an evil dictator. I'll buy the nasty dictator part. But how much of the conflict is basic tribal warfare? Or Eastern vs Western domination over Libya? How do the rebels treat Gadaffi's loyalists?
And the longer the conflict lasts, the nastier all sides become.

 

[MG1962]

It should be a done deal by now...right ?

No fly zone in place...check
Message sent to dictators that the west won't tolerate military force against civilians...check.

I can't see any reason for western boots on the ground.

I agree - we are leveling the playing field for the rebels, if they are as commited to their cause they claim, then they need to win the war by their own means

 

[pchams]

If the 2011 events in the Arab world has proved something, it is that the "Arab Street" is tired of the old schtick of Beards & Crusaders. The people of Egypt and Tunisia were able to topple their "Western-backed-or-tacitly-approved" leaders and we didn't get in our planes to bomb them: quite the contrary Western powers had no other choice but to accept and commit to the protesters, because despite all our little interests, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, from our moral perspective, they were right to do what they did.

Maybe the arab street can come into present century.
Then we can talk.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yo, Homes!

War is OK if there is a Democrat in the Oval Office.

I believe that number is far greater than you or I can imagine.

So Liberals think Republicans are warmongers eventhough a Democrat got us into Vietnam and a Republican got us out.

So Liberals think Republicans are warmongers eventhough a Democrat will take sides in a civil war and slaughters foreigners just for being loyal to their country and its leader.

Now I know why the Liberals were saying that Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. They hoped because it would level the blame and be a distraction for their fumbling blunders.

Are any of the faces on Mt. Rushmore -- the faces of national heros -- Democrat?

 

[angrysoba]

Yo, Homes![qimg]http://devilart.net/images/smilies/colob/bd.gif[/qimg] War is OK if there is a Democrat in the Oval Office.



So Liberals think Republicans are warmongers eventhough a Democrat got us into Vietnam and a Republican got us out.

So Liberals think Republicans are warmongers eventhough a Democrat will take sides in a civil war and slaughters foreigners just for being loyal to their country and its leader.

Now I know why the Liberals were saying that Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. They hoped because it would level the blame and be a distraction for their fumbling blunders.

Are any of the faces on Mt. Rushmore -- the faces of national heros -- Democrat?

I've answered these points already. You've ignored them.

What the Hell has Mount Rushmore got to do with anything?

 

[Pardalis]

Below, George Galloway

Please, this is a serious forum.

 

[Pardalis]

They have no moral legitimacy

And Qhaddafi has?

(even now, the US is slaughtering civilians in Pakistan)

What about the Taliban? You want to let them rule the place? Is that your "Arab solution"?

You can't use your old excuse that they are merely defending themselves against the invaders, since the US hasn't invaded Pakistan. You seem in denial that the Taliban are deliberately targeting civilian populations, and are slaughtering ethnic and religious minorities.

In contrast, the civilian casualties caused by US strikes are unintentional, they are targetting the fascist Taliban, not the population.

But you don't seem to recognize the difference. I wonder why that is. Your mind is so full of ideological hate, you can't think straight. If you're so disgusted at the West, maybe you should go and join them?

 

[Thunder]

Now they can go **** themselves.

Never again should we do their dirty work for them. Bunch of ungrateful idiots. Next time they seek our help, WE'RE BUSY.

D'oh!

Jihad Jane coming to protest the "evil" US intervention is in 3...2...1...

Bingo!

Sometimes I think JJ is a robot.

JJ doesn't think, it responds like an automaton.

You can always try. You and your army of strange internet revolutionaries.

Please, this is a serious forum.

well, maybe you should start treating it like one.

 

[Pardalis]

You like George Galloway Thunder?

I see I got an admirer. You collect my posts often? A bit creepy though.

 

[Thunder]

You like George Galloway Thunder?

nope, I think he's a tool.

 

[Pardalis]

So what was the point of your post?

 

[Pardalis]

No point uh? Thought so. Just your sunday night trolling I guess. Or troll-by posting.

 

[WildCat]

...which, of course, you never have!

~~~~~~~~~~

'BP to start drilling off Libyan coast'

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I've answered these points already. You've ignored them.

There is a lot to say.

I am not done yet.

So Obama says he cannot just sit by while a "tyrant" slaughters "his own people". This means that if Obama was president during Tiananmen Square, he would have bombed China.

What the Hell has Mount Rushmore got to do with anything?

We respect those four because they knew how to be president. They also knew when to use force and when not to use force.

 

[Bill Thompson]

And Qhaddafi has?

Did Lincoln have moral authority to go to war with the south?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Did Lincoln have moral authority to go to war with the south?

Yes because the Jewish League of New America gave him the moral authority to go to war with the south.

 

[Skeptic]

The intervention right now seems morally about correct to me.

The west didn't go around looking for a monster to slay, however monstrous Kadaffi was. (In an ideal world perhaps they should have, but in the real world I can see why they didn't and shouldn't.) The west intervened only when it became clear, from his declarations and actions, not that he is a dictator, not even that there will be civil war as such. It intervened only when it became clear that he is intent on committing a large-scale massacre of civilians against his opponents presently. It is that they intend to stop.

Of course it's always possible that the rebels will credibly threaten to do the same to his supporters if and when they are in power. If that happens, then, yes, the west should start bombing them. This is not inconsistency but rather moral consistency, just like if Jews after WWII began a massive slaughter of Germans civilians in retaliation for the holocaust the allies would have been quite justified to stop it, by force if necessary.

But from what I gather this doesn't seem to be the case. The revolution isn't against his tribe or his ruling ethnic group but against him.

P.S.

Of course it's "all about oil", say the usual gang of idiots. Because getting rid of a man who cheerfully supplied the west with oil for decades is so much in the west's interest. Anybody blamed the Jews, I mean the "zionist who control America", yet? If not, they're late. It usually happens 0.004 microseconds after the west does anything.

 

[angrysoba]

There is a lot to say.

I am not done yet.

So Obama says he cannot just sit by while a "tyrant" slaughters "his own people". This means that if Obama was president during Tiananmen Square, he would have bombed China.

I think we all know why he wouldn't. Because that would have meant nuclear war. There are some risks you just cannot take.

And the standard answer to this is the same one that I am sure your co-partisans would have said when asked why Bush felt it necessary to go to war with Iraq when, after all North Korea has WMDs, Robert Mugabe is as bad a dictator as Saddam, the Saudis oppress their people etc... that is, if you are limited in your ability to apply a principle universally it doesn't follow that you cannot apply that principle to the best of your ability.

Now, who do you know that was opposed to the no-fly zones over Iraq as implemented by George I that is now gung-ho for no-fly zones over Libya as implemented (in conjunction with a UN-sanctioned coalition) by Obama?

If you cannot answer that question then your self-pitying rhetoric on behalf of the Republicans fails.