We're violating a sovereign nation that's fighting an internal insurrection because...

[PurityOfEssence]

...we don't like the leader?

What is the moral pretext for intervening in Libya? Sure, Qadaffi's a skunk, but this is a very important point of international relations: what gives the UN the right to intervene in a revolution?

The rule of law doesn't seem to be too terribly on the side of this, as far as I can see. Some of his people are in open revolt, and many of the neighboring states want them to succeed. Is this the metric for armed intervention these days? Is this a good precedent?

What's disturbing is that this doesn't seem to be brought up in many cases, and it SHOULD be: this is, by definition, an extraordinary act by the concerted nations, and a clear justification for choosing sides seems a bit warranted.

Anyone else having some moral qualms about this? Do we have the right to help overthrow everyone we don't particularly like?

[HereSince1628]

1. Ostensibly it's because a country is using its military to kill its own civilians

[leftstreet]

4. That's dumb. Most countries use ours

:hide:

[HereSince1628]

12. Maybe so, but that's Hillary's story and she's stick'n to it.

[leftynyc]

161. Wow - I missed the story

about how she became Commander in Chief. Got a link?

[HereSince1628]

170. Look up ostensible...telling something that the public can grasp

is not the same as telling the public the truth.

As Sec of State Hillary is the pinnacle of the agency that tells the public what they can grasp while doing things for very different reasons off stage.

It really is a matter of the position she is in.

[Rage for Order]

125. What about Burma and North Korea? n/t

[HereSince1628]

148. What about them?

Undoubtedly similar rationales could be used in Asia and subsaharan Africa. If a decision is made to make war in any of those places I would expect to here something similar.

[stevenleser]

153. Actually, since both Burma and North Korea would likely provoke a conflict with China...

I'd say that the comparison is apples to oranges. Unless someone sees a potential escalation to nuclear conflict as something insignificant and unworthy of being worried about.

[HereSince1628]

155. The point is, it's not that the rationale is unique to Libya

It isn't. The same exact argument could be made for the Ivory Coast.

The point is this is an ostensible argument...an argument that can be understood...that is being used.

I'd not defend it as more worthy in one place than another. It's used often, usually as a cover to other reasons...such as accessing oil.

[stevenleser]

156. My point is that your point is wrong or inadequate. It's not just the rationale its the feasibility.

If your proposed intervention has a strong possibility of igniting a broader conflict between nuclear armed foes, it's probably not going to be done by anyone who isnt suicidal.

On Edit: And in terms of Ivory Coast, after Somalia, I think any US President is going to think twice about intervening in sub-saharan Africa.

[HereSince1628]

160. Yes, I get feasability, but even so, you are indeed missing the point

A cover argument, an ostensible argument--an argument that can be grasped--has NOTHING to do with whether the action it is used to argue for is feasible or not.


It is after all, just a cover story.

os·ten·si·ble/äˈstensəbəl/
Adjective: Stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so.

edited to add the definition of ostensible.

[stevenleser]

162. The broader issue with your point and that of many here and in the progressive community is that not

all wars are the same or fought for the same reasons.

Iraq and Afghanistan are very different and both are different from Libya. Some in the progressive community are attempting the round peg/square hole insertion of spinning all these to be about oil. It doesnt work and there are many reasons why.

I've even started to see some of the most stridently anti-war progressives attempting to revise history about our entry into World War II to make us look as bad as possible.

I'm anti-war in most circumstances, but I won't spin events to fit an anti-war agenda.

[HereSince1628]

172. No, I have written that this action was rationalized for ostensible reasons

that probably could be applied to multiple situations for which military intervention has NOT been inacted in Asia and Africa.

I do not know WHAT made Obama finally decide to go public on a move for a NFZ. _Ostensibly_ that is because we are protecting the civilian population in Libya. Do I think that is the real reason? I think it might be but then again it might not be the real reason.

[Rage for Order]

165. If we're going into Libya on the principle that a gov't is killing its citizens...

Then we should not be afraid to stand up for our principles anywhere in the world, regardless of the risk. The Chinese aren't stupid; they wouldn't go nuclear because they know what the end result of that path would be.

[stevenleser]

166. Ignoring considerations because they interfere with your meme is also known as "spinning" n/t

[HereSince1628]

171. No you don't get it. Our gov't says what the public can grasp

and our gov't says it in a way that its citizens are likely to accept.

It has nothing to do with having a universal guiding principle or avoiding hypocracy.

It's about the gov't doing things in a manner that the people can swallow (hook, line and sinker sometimes...as in Iraq had to be invaded because Saudi terrorist knocked down the WTC).

[Unvanguard]

2. ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[bluerum]

3. Sweet Libyan crude.

[AnOhioan]

6. +1

[L. Coyote]

46. See your +1 and raise you +1,000

[ixion]

11. bingo.

Spot on, that.

[DainBramaged]

14. Yup that's all it is....

[readmoreoften]

17. +1

[ButterflyBlood]

113. If that were the only reason, wouldn't the intervention be to back up Gadaffi?

Shutting down the rebellion quickly would be the most efficient way to get the oil flowing again.

[PurityOfEssence]

127. Not if people were looking for a better deal...

Hey, guys, we'll help ya get rid of the big bad wolf if you'll make us a sweetheart deal on that light and ever-so-sweet crude...

In fact, backing the rebels would be a much better way to get say-so on the amount produced and all sorts of other goodies. Sure, the prices are set externally, but I'm sure there are ways to cut back on delivery costs or otherwise sweeten the deal...

[Raksha]

135. That's my theory too. I think the U.S. finally got off the fence

about the no-fly zone when the Libyan rebels happened to mention that they weren't going to forget the countries that helped them out in their time of need--or the ones that DIDN'T.

Re In fact, backing the rebels would be a much better way to get say-so on the amount produced and all sorts of other goodies. Sure, the prices are set externally, but I'm sure there are ways to cut back on delivery costs or otherwise sweeten the deal...

[Initech]

138. End oil company subsidies, cap their profits, and all this goes away.

[Safetykitten]

158. Yeaaaa baaaaby OIL!

[NoTimeToulouse]

5. Was that your view on Egypt as well?

[readmoreoften]

15. We intervened in Egypt? No. We didn't. Let the people handle it.

We don't need to mess around in their business. And while we're at it, we should stop 3 decades of CIA funding and training the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. People have a right to self-determination. If we want to help, we can arm them.

[NoTimeToulouse]

35. Did the government of Egypt resort to mass killings of its citizenry?

Does Quadafi have the right to kill indiscriminately?

[L. Coyote]

51. Yes, they did.

[NoTimeToulouse]

54. Really? *Mass killings? Link?

*Hundreds? Thousands?

And Mubarak was removed.

[L. Coyote]

71. The opened fire on protestors and snipers shot people in Liberation Square.

And, what happened in response?

Egypt has no oil, but they control the Suez Canal. Geopolitics was at work, and nothing was done until the outcome was clear.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

89. One difference is in Egypt 762 people are said to have died in the protest

Before they successfully ousted Mubarak. It's done, they won.

So far in Libya, depending on what you believe, between 1500 and 6000 people are said to have died and Gaddafi's not gone. I doubt he's going anyplace either, but that's just my personal feelings on Libya's leadership, which has nothing do do with anything here.

You asked what the difference is, and those are the differences which are being brandied about. Gaddafi's not going anyplace and he will keep killing citizens until they stop trying to force his hand.

The questions should be not what's the difference, but do we care what happens to the people of Libya? If so, why? And so on. You get the point. Those two situations really aren't similar enough to compare, but there are good questions to be asked.

[NoTimeToulouse]

91. Well said.

[JVS]

110. Ok so mass killings is 1500 and up and 762 is ok?

The reason Khadaffi's killings are mass killings is because the media portrays them that way, while Mubarak's (a pro-western puppet) killings were something that happened off screen and didn't get much spoken about.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

122. Really, this isn't about the media either.

We're more intelligent than the US media here. The difference is Mubarak's gone. They won. They lost lives in the process, but the losses had meaning. And most importantly they're over.

Libya's people haven't and probably won't win. They're out gunned, and going to be killed until they give up the notion they deserve better. Gaddafi's not going to cave in to pressure from this uprising. He's not Mubarak. He's not a puppet and he has no pressure to step down, and many reasons to continue on as he's been doing for more than 40-years. The uprising will have to decimate his forces before he relents. Which is highly unlikely. The odds, and history, are against them.

A good question is why do we care what happens to the people in Libya? They're just one more country being led by a dictator willing to kill his people to retain his power.

Another good question (on edit: I forgot to add this before, forgive my tired brain) is why would a resolution such as this pass the UN?

Again. this is not like Egypt. They won. Pretty quickly and with a minimal of life sacrificed for an uprising of the populace against their government, too.

[NoTimeToulouse]

131. Why do we care? Human rights maybe?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

137. That's a good answer

It's why I care. Am I wrong to assume why you do as well? It's a sign of a compassionate, empathetic being.

It's a good answer. A worthy answer. However, is it the only answer? There are a lot of angles to this complex issue.

[NoTimeToulouse]

139. I don't like injustice, or those who turn a blind eye to it.

[NoTimeToulouse]

130. This would be over Gaddaffi (sp?) was gone. Let him be gone.

[JVS]

174. And when he's gone and the rebel groups start fighting among themselves?

Do we keep bombing then? Do we have to occupy Libya?

[NoTimeToulouse]

90. Mass killings? Mass? And yet Mubarak is no longer there.

[MilesColtrane]

145. The Egyptian military maintained a degree of neutrality.

Even though military leaders released statements supporting Mubarak early on, the grunts reportedly refused to fire on protestors with live ammunition, and at one point were keeping anti and pro-Mubarak forces apart.

That's why it was over relatively quickly and with relatively little blood shed.

In Libya there is an active military campaign to crush organized government opposition.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. That was a completely different situation: demonstrations demanding the resignation of a government

They didn't declare themselves a legitimate government and attempt foreign recognition. They didn't seize cities and literally start a civil war; they were putting pressure on and demanding redress.

These are completely different situations.

[NoTimeToulouse]

41. Declare themselves a legitimate government and attempt foreign recognition...

Kind of like the founding fathers of the American revolution?

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Only a vague similarity, actually...

A COLONY of a country revolted against its parent country, and I'd say that the parent had the right to quell the insurrection, just as I'd say that the colonists had the right to rebel. France, on the other hand, was pulling a bullshit, cynical move for vengeance over a recent defeat and general competition against the parent. Good thing for us that they did, but they were hardly being noble.

Here, a group of nations is taking sides with armed intervention against an internal struggle. The pretext is weak, and it's somehow premised upon protecting the innocent waifs who've taken up armed insurrection against their government.

What's to stop the UN from military intervention elsewhere where it sees an advantage to unseating the current government? Are we to trust the vagaries of human whim to always find the "right" and "best" bunch among the contenders? More importantly, what gives us the fucking right?

If it was, as is contended by others, to be some kind of systematic extermination, we should intervene, but that's not the case; this is a military civil war. Even in the former case, we should only intervene to stop the murder, not pick a winner.

[NoTimeToulouse]

132. Slitting hairs now?

:rofl:

[ButterflyBlood]

119. Uh, that was tried in Libya

and Gadaffi's response was to bomb them with the air force. And state any protesters found would be killed. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO DO? Even in Egypt Mubarak's regime was threatening to execute protesters who surrendered.

[PurityOfEssence]

128. It's still a significant difference: this is armed insurrection and occupation of territory

That's civil war. The Egyptian protesters didn't--as far as I know--declare themselves a government-in-being and take up arms against their government.

Where do we draw the line now? If the UN "likes" a revolutionary movement and the standing government is retaliating when that movement takes territory and takes up arms, does it claim the right to violate sovereignty, barge in and do as it pleases? Yes, the League of Nations partly failed because it had no teeth, but I don't like the implications of this kind of biting.

My concerns are more about the precedent set here, and anyone with a twinge of sentiment about the concept of civilization should have a qualm or two, too.

[ButterflyBlood]

129. The line appears to be drawn when military action is used against protesters

Saying that governments have free reign to slaughter any opposition to them sets a precedent to me far far more worrying than anything here. What should the rebels have done, just gone about the orders? Because that's what they are, those in the army who refused to follow orders to do this.

Besides what makes Gadaffi legitimate anyway? He took power in a military coup and has never faced any type of election.

[JVS]

109. We took military action on Egypt?

[Ozymanithrax]

7. We are supporting the aspirations of the people who want freedom...

Just as we did in Egypt. But for the Libyans we say, if you can't get it done peacefully, we support Khadafi's right to murder you and stick a pitchfork in your childrens guts.

[roamer65]

8. Genocide gives us the right to intervene.

[TransitJohn]

18. Darfur

Actual genocide, no oil.

[joshcryer]

22. Actually, Southern Sudan was a strategic oil path and China was involved for that reason.

http://meandophelia.blogspot.com/2004/08/oil-china-genocide-in-sudan-and-south.html

[TransitJohn]

30. No oil for us.

We have Federal law against doing business there.

[ananda]

21. I agree.

I wish we could help in Bahrain too. It's just so tragic when
governments turn against their own people like that.
There's a wrong to it that is so deep and really hits the
psyche hard.

[provis99]

40. what a baloney use of the word genocide.

People like you have stretched the meaning so far that genocide is virtually meaningless these days.

[joshcryer]

72. 300+ people dead a day isn't a genocide?

OK.

[stevenleser]

95. Not necessarily, no. Genocide isn't just amounts its the reasoning behind it.

300, 3000, 30000 dead a day could simply be mass murder. Genocide implies specific targeting of a group/cohort of people for reasons that go beyond the actions of that cohort, reasons like race, nationality, religion, etc.

[joshcryer]

100. OK so political reasons cannot be considered?

[stevenleser]

104. No, those are not included. See links below.

Genocide implies you are being killed over something that is not related to government. Your race, your nationality, your sexual orientation, your religion, etc., the government has no business being involved in those things yet you and everyone like you is being intentionally and systematically wiped out because of it.

[joshcryer]

106. Fair enough, I'll call it mass murder then.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. What genocide? Revolutionaries are attempting to sieze the rest of the country.

It's not like a bunch of coffee-house patrons were calmly sipping espresso while talking politics and they were rounded up and shot, people declared themselves a legitimate government and tried to overthrow the current one.

Genocide is when a cultural, ethnic or religious group is systematically exterminated. Yes, there are many complex tribal rivalries, but it's nowhere near that kind of thing.

[joshcryer]

73. You don't know what you're talking about.

[stevenleser]

98. Actually, yes, that person does know what they are talking about.Here are links that define genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

[joshcryer]

105. Well that's a shitty ass definition, excluding political groups. Fine, Gaddafi has done mass murder.

[stevenleser]

108. There is a specific reason for that definition, and yes, Qaddafi still deserves removal for mass

murder. As I noted above, genocide implies everyone of a specific group is being wiped out for reasons that have nothing to do with anything the government should be concerned with and things about which people generally have little control. I cannot control my ethnicity. LGBTers cannot control their orientation. You cannot say that about political affiliation.

[joshcryer]

115. Well I see it a little differently, for I cannot change my political orientation...

...and I've held my beliefs since I was 15 or so.

[snagglepuss]

9. A number of countries signed a UN Declaration some years ago agreeing to armed

intervention should a govt start attacking its own people. These countries are actually obligated to help.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Does a government have no right to quell a revolt?

There's a big difference between attacking one's own citizens and attempting to wrest control back from an organized group that has declared itself the rightful government and is in literal revolution.

I can't stand the guy either, but this is hardly a simple situation.

[snagglepuss]

32. Govt don't thave the right to indiscriminately bomb their population

especially govts that are run by despots.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. That doesn't seem to be the case here

They seem to be very specific about whom they're attacking. They're trying to retake territory that has been seized by an unfriendly power; they're trying to recapture their country.

It's not simple.

What's problematic to me is the pretext with which we decide to intervene in a civil war. It's an internal issue. If we can just do this because we feel like it, what's to stop us from invading Venezuela or someplace else that annoys us?

What's the pretext? We don't like that he's fighting back to preserve his power? Who are we to say that?

[snagglepuss]

92. The Responsibilty to Protect does apply here. Bragi lower on the thread posted

the pertinent paragraghs


Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?option...

[Oilwellian]

133. quell a revolt?

I take it you haven't seen the pictures coming out of Libya. I would hardly call the vicious assault on the Libyan people, "quelling a revolt." What a shitty fucking way to describe it.

[JBoy]

10. The legal basis derives from the UN charter

which authorizes the Security Council to make the resolution that it did.

To the extent that most nations, including Libya, signed on to the UN charter, this is a legitimate and perfectly legal action.

[still_one]

13. I agree with what you are saying, however, when the demonstrations started in Libyia we should not

have implied, along with the other countries that we were going to get actively involved. That left the rebels incorrectly believing that we would indirectly be supporting them with the no-fly zone

For the last week, we have left them hanging dry, because we were trying to get international support, but because of that delay, we ended up hurting the rebels

To little too late if we were going to do something

[joshcryer]

16. THE LEADER IS BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINST HIS MURDEROUS...

...BEHAVIOR.

OH MY GOD. I have to stop reading these thread.

You will all go back to not caring in a day or so.

[readmoreoften]

19. AND SO ARE THE LEADERS OF BAHRAIN BUT WE'RE SUPPORTING THEM.

Doesn't this hypocrisy make you wonder what's really behind this sudden willingness to fight dictators? We've been doing business with these dictators for decades. Now we care about the people? While, simultaneously we're backing the Kings who violently suppress them 3 nations away? Nothing here is fishy to you?

Your good heart is being MANIPULATED here if you're not skeptical.

[joshcryer]

23. What? Bahrain = police shoot protestors. Libya = army bombs protestors.

I hope that Bahrain does not escalate to the level that Libya has, but if it does I will support intervention.

[readmoreoften]

27. Okay, so we support Kings who open fire into their population, but not dictators who bomb their

population.

That make no sense.

Yes, the US government will support "humanitarian" intervention too. Whether or not the people want it.

[joshcryer]

37. Again, let me know when Libya is comparable. They're not and if you followed them...

...you'd know that.

[MikeW]

74. what is it about dead you dont get ... dead is dead, doesnt matter if its a bomb or a bullet

[joshcryer]

78. Lousiana had killings every day, no reason to invade it.

Libya has an entire years worth of Louisianian level deaths a day. Probably reason for concern.

[Aerows]

28. Meanwhile, in the US...

...people die every day due to a lack of health care. I guess those people dying don't matter, but people dying in Libya apparently do.

[MikeW]

77. well the US government certainly doesnt give a crap, people out of work for 2 or more years

and the list is endless.

BUT BY ALL MEANS, our positon as the "world cop" must prevail!!!!

help the opressed !!!! what about all of the opressed jobless in the US ... who helps them?

[ButterflyBlood]

121. Strawman

Maybe if this was Free Republic this argument might have some validity.

[ReggieVeggie]

57. talk about semantics!

like there's some magical difference???

[joshcryer]

60. Yes.

[Unvanguard]

25. Yes, obviously the US has a double standard. So what?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about "our" motives; if it helps the Libyan rebels, I support it.

[readmoreoften]

31. How is it going to help the Libyan rebels? Are we helping to fight against the Taliban?

How's that going?

I care very much about OUR motives because the outcome depends on OUR motives and if we win the territory, the Libyan rebels lose.

[Unvanguard]

112. Somehow I suspect that the Libyan rebels have a better idea of what helps them than you do.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

44. The US didn't even put the NFZ to the table, and we were the last to jump on board.

It's a fucking joke of epic proportions. I can't wait until tomorrow or the day after when all the people who "care" stfu and move on to whatever other BS they want to talk about that has little facts.

[WinkyDink]

47. So you want both, or neither?

[joshcryer]

52. People have NOT been following this. Libya is in a VERY bad state.

When shit gets as bad as Libya all progressive should support intervention.

[ixion]

24. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BOMB THEM INSTEAD

'freakin' groovy. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

Yes, you bomb tyrants when they don't listen to the world asking for a cease fire.

[ixion]

63. Uh, except that isn't who is actually going to get bombed. That is what you call a pretext.

But the people who actually do the suffering are the same.

[joshcryer]

67. Yes, it's likely that a lot of kidnapped students are going to get bombed, too.

Gaddafi will likely surround his tanks with students tied by rope and blindfolded.

I wouldn't put it past him.

[ixion]

76. ...

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

79. Hmm? You really haven't been following what Gaddafi has done.

He's disappeared people, taken students hostage. It's well known if you've been fucking following Libya.

[ixion]

81. He's done nothing the US hasn't done...

hence my reason for the reaction. Your righteousness is misplaced, in my opinion.

Oh, and the Libyan rebels have said we should stay out of it. But I suppose you don't really care what they think.

[joshcryer]

88. The US has done nothing of the sort against ITS OWN CITIZENS.

A leader of a nations #1 job is to protect their citizens.

[ixion]

96. rofl

:rofl: Oh please...The US government doesn't give a rat's ass about individual citizens, and in fact has demonstrated quite clearly that they hold us in contempt, and consider us a potential threat.

[joshcryer]

101. OK

[ButterflyBlood]

120. Please provide me of an example of the US Air Force bombing non-violent protestors

I'm waiting. Hell not a single one of those teabagger clowns has ever been killed.

[ixion]

146. There are plenty of example of the US govt treating it's civillians like

punching bags and/or guinea pigs.

[ixion]

149. Oh, and there are non-violent protesters sitting in prison

compliments of the FBI.

[stevenleser]

103. No, not really. When the UN Security council sanctions something, its not "We", "we're" or "us"

I realize this interferes with the meme you want to impose on the situation, but what you are implying does not fit.

[ixion]

107. The people on the receiving end of our bombs don't really mince semantics

but nice try.

[stevenleser]

111. Actually, intent and justification is everything. Nice try yourself.

If you dont like what I write here and plot to kill me, and of course execute your plan, you are guilty of first degree murder and you could go to jail for life or perhaps get the death penalty. If, however, I am trying to kill you and you kill me defending yourself, you would receive no punishment at all.

Again, I realize this interferes with the meme you want to impose on this situation, but intent and justification are big parts of what does and does not constitute a crime. You may want to look up the latin term Mens rea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[ixion]

114. We're not talking criminal. We're talking political/military

And the context -- saving people from malfeasance -- has nothing to do with it. Libya has oil. That's why we're going to bomb them.

And I'm fully aware of the concept of Mens rea, and once again, the people we're about to bomb are not going to really be concerning themselves with intent.

[stevenleser]

118. But it all boils down to the same thing. If you are asserting we have no justification for being

there, or malicious intent, then you are implying that we are about to commit a war crime.

And, if you accidentally kill someone, they are just as dead as if you do so intentionally, or in self defense. By your words, that doesnt matter, right? We shouldn't concern ourselves with intent, they're still dead.

That doesn't work.

[ixion]

147. Yes, I am asserting we have no justification for being there...

and intent-wise, our intent is to protect the oil. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with helping people. If Libya had no oil, we wouldn't have a thing to do with them. If you don't believe me, just as the people of Tibet.

[stevenleser]

151. Then you are talking about a crime, just as I posited. n/t

[stevenleser]

152. You really cannot see the difference with Tibet? You want to fight a nuclear war with China?

I'm glad you are not in charge.

[ixion]

157. The pretext is a humanitarian mission

in that context -- a people being ruled by an oppressive regime -- it is the same.

My premise is that it's about oil, and you've still not proven that incorrect.

[stevenleser]

159. You've offered no facts to prove or disprove. You asserting something doesnt make it so.

How about a link that supports your position before asking me for a link to disprove it.

[DutchLiberal]

102. I know! Can you believe these people?!

[HEyHEY]

126. May as well not waste you time with this here.

They don't care

[Oilwellian]

134. Thank you

I'm having the same reaction as you.

[Bragi]

29. The rationale is "R2P" -- "Responsibility to Protect"

Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398

[daleo]

86. That would be nice

But I think it's actually about securing access to a declining resource, namely oil. If we help overthrow Ghaddaffi you can bet western oil companies will be looking for access to their oil, and better and cheaper access than they have now.

I have a hunch this won't go any better than Iraq.

[PurityOfEssence]

136. 138 and 140 don't apply at all, and 139 is a BIG stretch

I appreciate the orderly and civil response, and especially the specifics of the charter, since the very soul of my misgivings relate to adherence to law and mutual agreement within our broader civilization.

138 addresses a nation's right to protect its own people; it does not grant external forces the right to intervene in a nation if such acts are being performed internally. Genocide and ethnic cleansing do not seem to be present here, and war crimes and crimes against humanity are a stretch. Even so, this addresses the nation's actions, not actions to be taken by a self-appointed proxy to defend that nation's people from the nation's government.

140 addresses genocide; there is no evidence in the least of genocide here. This is a political conflict, and even with the tribal divisions, there doesn't seem to be a racial/religious component at all. Although there's a very tenuous justification for citing 138, there's simply none here, and this smacks of piling-on. Hey, if THREE whole points of the charter are cited, there MUST be a slam-dunk case, right?

139 is also tenuous, but certainly a bit more to stand on. If the issue is to stop crimes against humanity that are ongoing, then the actions should be to address these, but the no-fly resolution is to hamper the military operations against an insurgent force. A sovereign government has the right to put down a revolution; the issue is by what means they are permitted to do so. At the moment, the military operation seems to be simply that: a military operation with forces vying for control of territory and seeking to destroy their opponent's forces. That's civil war. If there are war crimes or crimes against humanity that are the issue, the action would need to be something that would stop those, and a no-fly mandate wouldn't do it.

It's not cut-and-dried, which is my point. The implications for the future are quite disturbing, and the motivations of the parties concerned are rather suspect. You'll note that not all industrialized nations are for this: China, Germany, India, Russia and Brazil ALL ABSTAINED. I doubt Russia's and Brazil's misgivings are to suck up to Qaddafi and be on the fence; they don't have huge oil worries.

Playing favorites in internal struggles is a VERY BAD PRECEDENT, and not the obvious and indisputable bailiwick of the United Nations.

Still, much as people (not meaning you, here) demand things be black-and-white, the impetus for this thread was a wondering if anyone else had misgivings at a time when seemingly everyone has no problem with a rather extreme bit of intervention in a nation's private business. Laws are not always convenient, and they're often in place specifically to guard against the passions of the moment.

Then again, if there's anyone who ever had it coming, he's the guy. I'm just not a fan of Roy Bean, though, if you get what I mean...

[Bragi]

150. Your concerns are absolutely valid

In referencing the "R2P" accord (or whatever it is) I was just hoping to shed some light on the question of what might be the legal basis for this military intervention. As far as I can tell, the R2P accord does provide some basis for this action.

On the question of whether some of the players around the Security Council table might be using R2P as an excuse for military pursuit of an agenda that has nothing to do with R2P, absolutely, that is possible, probably even likely.

As for me, I just feel horribly uncertain about what is going down, but in the end, I think I support the intervention, provided that the goal is to simply prevent Gaddhai from massacring his own citizens.

If, under the no-fly protective cloak, the forces for democracy prevail, then that is a good outcome.

If the result of the no-fly regimen is that Gaddafi prevails anyway, and defeats the uprising, then I think we need to accept that outcome, provided Gaddafi does not begin to slaughter his opponents.

If the no-fly regimen stabilizes the situation resulting in a stand-off between the two sides, then that could lead to a negotiated settlement, which could also be a good outcome.

If the regimen results in a permanent stand-off with both sides dissatisfied with the outcome, I think it will still be worth it, since a lot of people will still be alive who would be dead if Gaddafi was allowed to continue without any no-fly intervention.

Finally, if the result is that the no-fly regimen leads to an invasion, then I think the operation will have failed everyone.

I guess that covers most of the likely alternatives here.

Bottom line for me: I'd rather risk a possible later invasion that to sit back and watch Gaddafi and his mercenary army slaughter his opponents.

[liberalmuse]

33. I guess we can stand by...

and watch Kadaffi (that's how I spell it) slaughter his own people.

[SmileyRose]

34. Yeah, well

I'm convinced it's human nature to stick our noses in each others business. Every power that I can think of from my history lessons has taken advantage of other country's internal problems to improve their position in the world.

[Tx4obama]

36. It is because Gaddafi is fixing to slaughter more of his people. n/t

[provis99]

42. and the leaders of Columbia slaughter their own people.

They just killed another FARC leader this week. Why don't we attack columbia? Oh right, they're right wing.

[Tx4obama]

48. We are talking about thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands.......

he has threatened to bomb Benghazi ..that is a HUGE city.

[sabrina 1]

82. We bombed thousands of Iraqis and no one interfered.

In fact the same people who are going to Libya, supported our slaughter in Iraq.

We are supporting Karamov in Uzbekistan who shot down protesters and boils his own people in oil as we speak.

In Iraq this past week, people were protesting just as they are all over the Arab World, in that democracy we supposedly created and our puppet government there shot 29 peaceful protesters to death in one day and rounded up for torture untold numbers of other peaceful protesters. Did we even SAY anything about that?

I want the people of Libya to prevail, but neither they nor any other Arab nation trusts or wants the U.S. on their soil.

We never do anything for altruistic reasons, and we will only send the military to countries have the potential to feed our oil addiction.

However, this situation has turned from something quite simple, people protesting demanding a more democratic country, into a war on the people. And there have been some odd things happening on twitter eg, where like all the other revolutions, this one first came to our attenetion.

I was fully in support of the people, and still am, but as this progressed some things began to occur that were a bit suspicious and like a lot of other people, I truly do not know what is going on there now and so prefer not to take a position.

Libya was in business, big business, with many of the Global Corps now in Iraq. Huge contracts had been signed. The rebellion threatened them. At first I thought 'serves them right' but I should have known that they would not be so blase about those billions and billions of dollars they stood to lose.

As I said, it has grown very complex over the past week and I am no longer sure about the whole situation. Will need a lot more information now before I know what to think. Saving lives is a priority however, so for that reason I hope just the threat of the no-fly zone will help.

[WinkyDink]

50. Maybe because it's "Colombia"? And "slaughter" is:

: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre)

[joshcryer]

59. You are comparing the killing of a gang leader to the RAZING OF ENTIRE CITIES...

...AND THE DISAPPEARING OF HUNDREDS OF YOUTH.

FUCK!!!!!!!

[provis99]

141. dumbass. Hundreds of thousands have died in Columbia.

Right-wing death squads overrun the country. but thanks for deliberately misunderstanding my post.

[malaise]

38. Yes indeed

So it seems.
No support here. This is fucking madness. For the record China and Russia abstained from the UN vote.

[CJvR]

39. Kick the Mad Dog hard!

"What is the moral pretext for intervening in Libya?"

Have you been hiding in a bunker for the last few weeks? You have't noticed what has been happening in Libya?

"Do we have the right to help overthrow everyone we don't particularly like?"

Only if they are stupid/crazy enough to provide an excuse.

[WinkyDink]

43. To stop a slaughter? You know: like how we used to say, "Never again"?

[PurityOfEssence]

62. So a sovereign government doesn't have the right to put down a rebellion?

This is very dangerous stuff: it sets a precedent that we can pick and choose the group we think deserves to be in power when internal strife occurs.

[tblue37]

66. It wasn't a rebellion. It was a protest, but then he started having

troops kill the protesters, and they then armed themselves and started fighting back in self-defense.

[joshcryer]

70. Not only that but all but one tribe of the army defected in support of the revolutionaries.

Gaddafi bombed their munitions depots very very early on they had no weapons.

[joshcryer]

68. I haven't seen your name in the past month of Libyan threads.

I consider your knowledge of the subject so missing that you're really not worth responding to.

[DutchLiberal]

99. It's not a 'sovereign government': it's a dictator who got there through a coup d'etat!

For fucking crying out loud! Get fucking real, would you?!

[L. Coyote]

45. Who is the "We're" in the OP? I know I'm not!!

[Mr Generic Other]

49. without french aid

the united states might not have won its revolution.

[ReggieVeggie]

53. Iraq v2.0 n/t

[Scuba]

56. Oil. n/t

[BanzaiBonnie]

58. To stop wholesale slaughter of the people

I don't know. The more Ghadafi says, the less I care what he says. And this manuever has the UN nations in agreement.

[denverbill]

61. I had moral qualms about invading Iraq because the pretext was a lie.

Shrub claimed the pretext was WMD and threats to American security. His motives (and especially Cheney's motives) are very suspect to me, but if he had been willing to go to the UN and say the reason we want to invade is because Saddam is a brutal dictator who needs to be deposed and replaced, presumably by a representative government, and the UN had agreed, I would have supported the invasion.

Instead he lied, fabricated evidence and went in primarily (IMO) because Saddam was about to get the sanctions overturned and American corporations had no access to the oil drilling contracts.

Personally, I think the one valid non-self defense use of the US military is to depose brutal despots, but we can't be the sole determiner of who deserves that fate. If the UN agrees, I say OK.

[tblue37]

65. That ws one of the arguments against intervening when Hitler was killing his

country's less approved of citizens en masse.

[Upton]

80. Gadhafi=Hitler?

Gee, where have I seen that kind of argument before?

Oh, that's right...Saddam=Hitler

[lefty2000]

75. France is Leading the Way

Because that's where the refugees will go if Qadafi wins.

[Dj13Francis]

83. Do we have the right to?

Since when has that question occurred to anyone in power around here?

That is not the question they're considering.

The question is, how to walk the fine line between doing nothing (which will lead to the righty hawks squawking about how doing nothing has left the freedom fighting rebels out to dry and get massacred with no western support and how if they were in charge and not these tree hugging bleeding heart liberals such things wouldn't happen) and doing something which will antagonize Saudi Arabia... They are looking for the middle ground between the two.

This has everything to do with domestic politics and zero to do with sympathy for the rebels in Lybia.

[lefty2000]

84. Which Side is Legitimate?

I seem to remember some old document that said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If this is true, is it wrong to help?

If the people withdraw their consent, Qadafi is the outlaw.

[killbotfactory]

85. We liked the leader, actually. We had oil deals and everything.

Then he started slaughtering peaceful protesters and escalated things into a civil war, and now possibly genocide, to prevent legitimate political change.

[fascisthunter]

87. yup... and it's really because of oil, if not we would have invaded Darfur

long ago... people here are deluding themselves into claiming the US should do something for the people there. Wake the fuck up.... look what your own government does to its own citizens.

[stevenleser]

93. That nation signed the UN Charter, just like we did. They agreed to abide by UN and UN Security

Council resolutions. They agreed to the UN's Universal declaration of human rights. We didn't make them do any of that.

The UN acts by consent of the governed just like any other Democratic body. Who gave them that right? Libya and everyone else who is a signatory to the charter.

[meow mix]

94. Unrec

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iterate]

116. I take your objection seriously,

but you make all of this sound whimsical and arbitrary.

The US hasn't "liked" Gadaffi since the early 70's when he took power in a military coup, replacing the constitutional monarchy almost without a shot. Since that time he has started several wars, held Libyans in a totalitarian state, carried out a list of terror attacks as long as your arm, carried off the nations' wealth, supported despots and tyrants in the Arab world and even worse in Africa, it goes on and on.

He managed to use (or was used) as a pawn in cold war, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and recently, the war on terror, an act which gained him the support of neocons. By playing off, and and aggravating, international tensions and intimidating the population, he's managed to stay in power with some of the most brutal tactics of the century.

Still, the rest of the world did not intervene.

Now, just weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of Libyans stood up to him, unarmed and peaceful. He blew them to bits with high caliber and explosive anti-aircraft rounds. He bombed and blasted whole cities who did nothing more than march and be disrespectful. Thousands dead. A few of them have now taken up arms. His "support" is probably only a couple hundred thousand loyalists and mercenaries (including the armed forces) out of a population of ~7 million. To me, that doesn't sound like "some of his people" in open revolt. It's not even a civil war (a term which I personally don't care for), but far more akin to an occupying army vs. a popular uprising against the occupation. If you prefer to call it a criminal clan holding the whole population in fear and intimidation, I'll go with that too.

The Libyan people are asking only, only, for the rest of the world to step in and take care of those things which they cannot yet do for themselves, i.e. freeze bank accounts, embargo, no-fly, etc. That, and to live up to their responsibility, as Bragi mentioned, the "Responsibility to Protect".

So finally, something extraordinary is happening, nations coming together to protect a population trying to reclaim their free and democratic nation, and that is extraordinary. It's so rare that I'm not surprised people are suspicious.

[Igel]

117. We have to protect civilians.

When we want to, we call them soldiers that defected, freedom fighters. Some civilians are manning antiaircraft batteries and helicopters. They impose martial law (sorry, "civilian law") and do all the stuff that the military would do.

But they're civilians because it's wrong to kill them as they use AK-47s to shoot at soldiers.

Those we like have a right to be civilians in name, but only in name. Those we don't like are soldiers in the army even if they're in a paramilitary and work in a factory for their day job.

So it's really important to take care of Libya because they're civilians that are doing the fighting and were victorious in battles early on. Not soldiers at all.

It's the same with child soldiers. If they're 14 and pressed into service shooting automatic weapons and trying to kill the enemy while being shot at and killed, soldiers out of uniform, we don't know if it's good or bad. We say that child soldiers is always an evil practice, but only when the examples before us involve the sides we think of as evil. Are the kids being cynically used by their families or leaders to support something that must be wrong because we oppose it? Or are they being valiant and brave, civilians fighting for their families and their freedom and rights, in the case of some cause we support? Dunno. First tell me the cause, then I can tell you which unalterable, universal, unchanging moral principle is at play--child soldiers = bad or child soldiers = good. Either way, child soldiers = whatever always the only One True Moral Principle, at least until it isn't.

Some insurrections are good; we like them, and find ways to justify them. We know these civilians in Libya are out for liberty, justice, and democracy because they say so. They deserve power and would be wise in wielding it because, well, they just will be. We can trust them.

Yeah. It sounds stupid. But that's how Realpolitik works. Gaddafi was a good guy when he kept the oil coming and didn't try to kill us, and even didn't like the same people we didn't like; it was politically sound to support him. Since we need to be liked by people in the Middle East, we suddenly found it was politically sounder to oppose him. We call it "morality," but it's always moral to seek your self-interest, in seems--or means can always be found to justify it.

We used to call it triangulation or ideology. Now we call it moral principles. Euphemisms are funny.

[HEyHEY]

123. Yeha, plus there's too many women and children on this planet anyway

:eyes:

[ButterflyBlood]

124. Imagine if Bush ordered the army to shoot protesters and some in the army fought back instead

Because that's EXACTLY what happened. That's who the rebels are, those in the army who refused to follow orders in this case. Remember those pilots who landed in Malta?

For fucks sake this is beyond indefensible...

[Romulox]

140. More blood for oil

Nothing more complicated than that.

[Rex]

142. Yes, you have that right and that is how we always do business.

We attack people we don't like.

[WildEyedLiberal]

143. Wow, the tears for Gaddafi here are too much to stomach

Iraq has really destroyed liberals' sense of foreign policy, to the point that too many will kneejerk oppose any US intervention just because ZOMG WE MUST BE THE BAD GUYS LOOK AT WHAT WE DID IN IRAAAAAAAAAAQ

I bet most of you would've opposed entering WWII, too. Ugh.

[meow mix]

154. i know and its astounding how much support these fucked up threads get.

makes my stomach turn.

[Godhumor]

163. "West (USA) is evil always" syndrome n/t

[Distant Observer]

144. OIL, GAS, OIL, GAS, ENERGY FOR ALL EUROPE. LYBIA HAS AFRICA'S LARGEST RESER

Unfortunately, there is little else to explain the European determination to go to war here, rather than in any of the multiple internal conflicts across Northern Africa over the last 20 years -- Western Sahara, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia.

The strong passions for Libya is mainly the result of a history of powerful Western interest being horribly frustrated for 40 years of trying to get dominance over Libya's massive energy resources. The Gaddafi regime has minimized Western profits and been slow to allow the opening up of exploitation of the massive resources that could provide a reliable supply of oil and gas just across the Mediterranean sea.

This has been viewed as criminal stupidity by the Europeans -- whose appointed King Gaddafi had overthrown -- and by local Libyan allies who shared their disdain for Gaddafi's "peoples revolutionary socialism."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

164. We're "protecting" people in Libya while bombing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

How does that work?

[ikri]

167. Too many western leaders backed themselves into a corner

A lot of world leaders immediately backed the insurrection against Qadaffi but when he didn't topple inside a few days as many of the apparently expected they were left with two options - go back to dealing with Qadaffi for oil or take military action to make sure that the government either topples or is forced into an insignificant corner away from all the oil.

The main western backers of the no-fly zone are Britain's David Cameron & France's Nicolas Sarkozy, neither of whom are very popular domestically right now & for whom a war with a decent amount of popular support at home and around the world might bolster their own popularity.

[backscatter712]

168. That's one of the insidious things about Iraq and Afghanistan.

We let the Bushies get us stuck in the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan over oil and bullshit ideology.

Which means that when a genuine humanitarian crisis happens, like in Libya, it makes it that much harder to intervene when intervention is genuinely needed and useful, and when there's an international consensus for it.

[stevenleser]

173. We progressives are supposed to be smarter than this though.

We should be leaving overly simplistic thought and generalizations to the Teabagger/Freeper set. They are better at it anyway.

[Lars77]

169. Libya forces fire rockets at Misrata & Zintan: report

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/18/142065.html


"Gaddafi's forces are bombing the city with artillery shells and tanks. We now have 25 people dead at the hospital, including several little girls," Dr Khaled Abou Selha told Reuters by satellite phone.

"They are even bombing ambulances. I saw one little girl with half of her head blown off," he said, crying.


________________________

This is NOT "another one of those stupid wars". This is an intervention that should have been started a week ago at the very least.

How many people said it was horrible to violate Serbian sovereignty when they were slaughtering Kosovars by the thousands?
This shit has to stop.