So, for Egypt and Tunisia: "We hope all countries are inspired by the revolutions!" For Libya...

[Godhumor]

"Why is the rest of the world getting involved in trying to protect the rebels? They just want oil and don't belong there!"

Think I got it (Yes, in case it isn't obvious, I fully support the no-fly zone and other actions).

[meow mix]

1. lot of tears for that poor old gaddafi...

the more self-hating americans cant see any good in anything. whatsoever.

[hlthe2b]

2. Had the Mubarak government been successful in turning the army

against the protesters, I would have supported our assistance to the protesters as well. There is a difference between aiding an oppressed people seeking to overturn a corrupt or cruel autocratic government and define their own future--- versus our invading and occupying a country in order to determine a government of our making.

That said, we certainly need Arab League countries taking the lead. Our role has to be one of support.

[Godhumor]

3. Our actions are based off of the UN resolution and we have not actually occupied the country

I firmly, firmly feel the rest of the world had to act against the Libyan government and am very glad they did (Though I do agree with you on the Arab League.).

[hlthe2b]

4. I was referring to a comparison with our actions in Iraq...

I think you missed that. :shrug:

[robdogbucky]

5. Same goes for Bahrain/Yemen, no?

Can't we aid those oppressed people too?

I see where SA sent the troops that did the massacre of protestors in Pearl Square.

I have heard reports of a similar massacre of protestors occurring in Yemen in the past couple of days.

Is that the kind of "Arab League," thing you had in mind?

Where are the advocates for freedom fighters in those countries?

In Saudi Arabia too. What about supporting the protestors there too?




"...Me, I'm waiting so patiently

Lying on the floor

I'm just trying to do my jig-saw puzzle

Before it rains anymore..."


Jagger/Richards


rdb

[hlthe2b]

6. In a perfect world, yes.

[Godhumor]

8. So because the world hasn't taken action in those other areas it can't take action in Libya?

I sthat the source of cynicism? Well, if they were sincere they would help x, y, z (and support these domestic reforms, as well)?

I just can't go along with the idea that because it is not happening elsewhere it shouldn't happen in a place where the government is escalating to full blown war against its people.

And yes, I'd have no problem with the UN sanctioning/taking action with other countries, as well.

[pampango]

9. Yes, using the same criteria used to decide whether to intervene in Libya.

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

In April 2006, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 in resolution (S/RES/1674), thereby formalizing their support for the norm. The next major advancement in RtoP came in January 2009, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a report called Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. This report argued for the implementation of RtoP and outlined the three principles of RtoP.

1. Principle One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).

2. Principle Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities and to assisting those, which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.

Threshold for military interventions

According to the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) Report in 2001, any form of a military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfill the following six criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention:

1. Just Cause
2. Right Intention
3. Final Resort
4. Legitimate Authority
5. Proportional Means
6. Reasonable Prospect

[PurityOfEssence]

7. For some of us, there's no inconsistency

I wish the rebels in Libya well, but don't think we should be interceding in a domestic affair unless it gets much, much worse. My sympathies were/are also there for the Tunisians and Egyptians, but I was/am similarly against intervention.

This has nothing to do with oil for me; it's a question of national sovereignty and the dangerous precedent that can be set by the UN stretching its justifications when dealing with those who have significant enemies.

Qaddafi is a rotter; there's no question about that.

The House of Saud is no better, and the Kingdom of Bahrain is showing itself to be rather ruthless to its people, too; should we invade them, too? By what right? If we attack Libya but DON'T attack Bahrain or Yemen, we're playing favorites and playing cynical games for personal gain, and doing so with the ugly justification of the suffering of real live humans. Now THAT'S ugly. It's like those stories of the babies in the Kuwaiti incubators; they were pure inventions, by the way, and I supported our war to run Hussein out of that country because he violated national sovereignty. Similarly, I was adamantly against the Iraq invasion of 2003 for the same reason.

At some point, human rights violations reach the level where the international community needs to intervene, but I don't see that this is the case in Libya. The details about imprisonments and disappearances are sketchy and do not involve large numbers of people.

Going off on a high horse and imposing one's will on a sovereign nation that's dealing with an internal struggle is a VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. The rebels aren't all just peaceful protesters who are being mowed down; they've declared themselves a government, seized territory and taken up arms against their government. Does a government have a right to put down a rebellion? At least to a certain degree, or ANYTHING is justified, and will be used by bully nations against weaker ones.

I would have been against intervention in both Tunisia and Egypt unless the government reactions had been considerably worse, and I am actually in moral agreement with the protesters in all three countries.

Once again, the great danger at hand is oversimplification and shrill emotional aggression.

People who accuse others of cynical pick-and-choose justifications should be more consistent in their own actions.