Why Intervention is right and the calls for restraint and outright criticism are necessary(in Libya)

[Tiggeroshii]

Upon the news of a popular uprising in Libya, the world became glued to their newspapers and televisions at the prospect that there will be another peaceful movement ousting another autocratic government. Revolutionaries began to peacefully control cities across half the nation, and thousand of protesters surrounded Kadafi's compound with unified calls for him to step down. Our hopes were high that the people would get what they wanted and a transition towards a more democratic government would be made. However these hopes quickly died as Kadafi's defiance led to more brutal crackdowns on the streets, where he began to indiscriminately murder protesters with his military. Those soldiers who defied orders to kill, were themselves murdered, execution style in the streets. While this brutal crackdown led to the defection of top government cabinet members and military officers, and a unified rebellion was built; the peaceful movement began to die as Kadafi pledged to go "house to house" and kill "traitors" in their homes.

As time passed, Kadafi proved true with his promise and began to push towards those cities that were occupied by the opposition. This push proved successful, as he took back most major oil towns and neared the "rebel stronghold" of Benghazi. While there were calls for intervention by some in the international community prior to the takeover of these cities; most of them fell on deaf ears. But when Kadafi promised "no mercy" before entering Benghazi, many were convinced something needed to be done and a no fly zone began to be enforced. Recently, there has been a mixture of good and bad news since the intervention began. While the air strikes have prevented the advancement by Kadafi forces on certain cities including Benghazi -likely sparing a substantial number of lives, there have been reports of foul play by both sides. Ill treatment of black Africans have been reported as the suspicions of foreign mercenaries rises. Kadafi's compound has been targeted by air strikes -clearly a violation of the rules of engagement. Some criticism of such actions have been taken to account however, as British forces recently called off an attack that would undoubtedly cost civilian lives.

The engagement by both sides in the situation: calls for and against the intervention are however, necessary in assuring the forces involved do not abuse their roles as this must remain a solely humanitarian mission. I believe that the use of forces is, and should always be treated as a controversial action no matter the case involved. That it must never be unanimous -as that is a sign of abused demagoguery, that it must always be protested. Mixed feelings on the subject can assure that -no matter how necessary an action may be, it will be followed through responsibly and with restraint. The United States obviously does not have the best reputation in recent years in conducting any type of military action. But hopefully with the sharp engagement of all those for and against it -in maintaining that everything from constitutionality to what kind of force is used;this nation can prove that it is capable of using force when necessary, with restraint, and in moderation.

As this is the largest UN sponsored action since the Korean War, we must prove that we are actually capable of doing things within the authority of an international body without fucking everything up.

[gateley]

1. Good points, but I'm already on that side of the fence. I've given up trying

to even present my feelings to anyone one who doesn't share my view -- it doesn't work for either faction to try to change the others' minds. We all want to do what's best, we just differ on how to achieve that. :shrug:

But I enjoyed reading your post - thanks!

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Thanks!

I really like that the action is met with skepticism by a substantial amount of people this time, and not just an impulsive rally around the flag like, say, the last couple of wars we started =\

[gateley]

4. Ditto - and I do have my eyes opened or give consideration to things I wouldn't have

ever have thought of were it not for those of differing opinions. Learning and growing! :hi:

[damntexdem]

6. Good points -- I called for the intervention from the start ...

and agree with the author's points.

[CJCRANE]

3. As I mentioned in

David_77's thread I think there's a natural emotional response of rooting for the underdogs.

But it's increased by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. We watched the protests and revolutions unfurl there and succeed with relatively little blood spilled...so when it came to Libya we hoped for the same outcome.

Without the context of the Arab Spring, maybe we would have ignored what's happening in Libya, just as we have in so many other oppressed countries. But when it's part of something bigger, there's a natural desire to see it through to completion.

On edit: speaking for the people who support the intervention

[Hav]

5. I agree with your points

and I like the calm manner you used to explain the reasoning behind mainly one side (not meant in a negative way) and show respect for both sides of the argument.
In the first answer, Gateley mentioned something I had to realize as well: discussions between people with totally differing views can be so unsatisfying and frustrating, that you rather wish to avoid them. The thing is, you don't have to necessarily bring them to your side. Now, I think it's enough to make people, who have different opinions, really understand from where you are coming from instead of using your opinion as a means to attack someones else opinion/character. That should be the basis for respectful discussions and your post is an example for that.

As for Libya, I honestly don't know what is "right" and what is not or if there even is a right decision. When people ask for international help in these terrible situations, should we look away? I always found it very tragic that during the cold war, when a considerable part of the people from Hungary or the CSSR(?) desperately asked for help, no one could come for help.
On the other side, I absolutely agree that the use of military force should pretty much always be met with skepticism. No offense meant, but especially a superpower needs a strong anti-war or better peace movement to help keep the balance.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. Definitely agree

...especially about the balance part. I would be scared crapless if there was another 90% of people in favor of this, in that it would likely lead to the US abusing that "mandate" and exploiting the situation for it's own benefit. "