Solved

Libya - Humantarian Crisis or Civil War?

Posted on 2011-03-14
62
20 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-11
I hate to see a country tearing itself apart as Libya is doing, especially in the light of the natural catastophy Japan is suffering. A man-made catastrophy seems all the more pointless.

Yet I don't think we are seeing much truth about this on the various news media. I get suspcious when I hear phrases being dropped like "humanitarian crisis". It seems the media want us to perceive this event in a particular way, yet I remain unconvinced.

Gaddafi's abolsute rule is different to other Arab nations only in the sense that he is not Royal and that he is stealing much of the wealth of the nation for himself - a typical disease of dictators. But if you think about it, all Royal families came to power by conquering it's opposition then setting up a dynasty. The only Arab country that has a democracy is Iraq...

The western governments are quick to play the humanitarian saviour role and recognise the rebels as legimate and label Gaddafi is committing humanitarian crimes against his people. Yet what I see in the news and photographs is a civil war. Military units and battelions have turned against the establishment and are fightuing with equal fervour. To me this is not genocide, nor is it any less "humanitarian" than in any war. If you look at Libya's humanitarian record, it's no more barbaric than that practised by Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Gaddafi hasn't had a history of humanitarian crimes against his people any more than any other Arab Nation.

The reason, in my view, that the west want to establish diplomatic contact with the rebels, is to "assist" them to create a democratic nation run by individuals with whom they can do business, in particular within the oil industry and defence. That is why Russia won't support international action... they have a few billions tied up in defence contracts with Gaddafi that will disappear if the rebels win.

In my opinion, the reason the western governments think they can get away with it is because like Saddam, Gaddafi is a loose canon that no political or religious group likes or supports. This means few or no political or religious repercussions.

Ok, but back to my questions:

Is this a genocide or a civil war?
What do you think the oucome will be?
What do you think they outcome will be if Gaddafi falls?
0
Comment
Question by:Jason210
  • 25
  • 15
  • 9
  • +3
62 Comments
 
LVL 1

Accepted Solution

by:
sbdt8631 earned 15 total points
ID: 35131106
>>Is this a genocide or a civil war?
I think it is pretty clearly a civil war.  You have the rebels in the east, comprised partly of citizen volunteers and partly defected armed forces units, fighting Gaddafi's armed forces and hired mercenaries in the west.  

>>What do you think the outcome will be?
I think that in the long run Gaddifi's forces will prevail.  It seems that he retains enough support from the traditional armed forces to have the firepower and resources to overcome the rebel forces. The rebels don’t seem to have the organization or supplies that Gaddafi’s traditional forces have.  The events of the last week seem to support that conclusion.  Gaddafi’s forces have retaken a number of towns from the rebels and have halted their advance to Tripoli.  It is unlikely that a no fly zone, if imposed by western nations, would affect the outcome much.  Apparently most of the damage being inflicted by Gadaffi’s forces is from tanks and land based rockets.

>>What do you think they outcome will be if Gaddafi falls?
I don’t expect that he will, but if he does, I would expect that another strongman would eventually emerge to rule the country.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35136057
I agree with your answers.

I think the UK and France will come of this looking very silly, and even more disliked by both the Libyan government but also the silent opposition in Libya.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35137410
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35139273
I agree, I think the west are just playing a game.
0
 
LVL 9

Assisted Solution

by:CCSOFlag
CCSOFlag earned 10 total points
ID: 35142633
Jason,

I agree with everything you said.  And you hit it on the head here:
The reason, in my view, that the west want to establish diplomatic contact with the rebels, is to "assist" them to create a democratic nation run by individuals with whom they can do business, in particular within the oil industry and defence. That is why Russia won't support international action... they have a few billions tied up in defence contracts with Gaddafi that will disappear if the rebels win.

In my opinion, the reason the western governments think they can get away with it is because like Saddam, Gaddafi is a loose canon that no political or religious group likes or supports. This means few or no political or religious repercussions.

Is this a genocide or a civil war?
you answered it: Civil War

What do you think the oucome will be?
Depends on who gets the upper hand.  I think if the rebels get the upper hand the US will intervene and support them to do as you say, turn them into a democratic republic that the US can befriend and steal their oil.

What do you think they outcome will be if Gaddafi falls?

Libya will be a pawn of the US.  We'll have troops there never ending as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:CCSOFlag
ID: 35142673
I wanted to add I think whatever the US does they need to walk a fine line, because the people of the US are growing tired of all the police actions we are doing.  They are tired of the lies on how long we are going to be over everywhere, why we are everywhere, etc.  Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war happens in the US soon.  There is a huge divide happening and the two sides apparently cannot come to compromises.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:BigRat
BigRat earned 15 total points
ID: 35147514
>>The western governments are quick to play the humanitarian saviour role and recognise the rebels as legimate and label Gaddafi is committing humanitarian crimes against his people

Not quite true. The governments play the humantirian role simply because they cannot agree on a strategy. Gadaffi has been for many many years a pain in the neck, was probably responsible for Lockerby, Reagan even bombed him, and he was only "brought back into the fold" recently by an action by Bush and Blair. France has recognised the rebels as legitimate successors of Gadaffi, simply because of the other North African nations, having exiled their dictators and having backed the wrong horses, need to do something after a cabinet reshuffle due to misjudgements.

Just like with the breakup of Jugoslavia, the Europeans don't know how to handle the situation, because, primarily, their association has no principles on which they can base a foreign policy (which is why that poor girl Ashton is such a joke) and as usual look for an American lead, which is not forthcoming because America is up to its hilt with its own problems (unlike at the time of Reagan and Clinton). Thus waiting for the Arab League to make the first move, and now waiting for the UN to make the second, which, as pointed out, is going to be difficult because various nations - like Russia during its contretemps with Georgia - don't see why the ought not to block out of sheer spite, particularly with the half-hearted approach anyway. (They got involved in Afghanistan with the rest and have really regretted it ever since).

So Gadaffi with his foreign mercenaries (which ought to be an international crim anyway) have managed to get their act together after the initial fuore and if the progress continues as it will, eventually regain all territory and will cause a flood of refugees into Egypt. Naturally all sorts of barriers will be put in the way of these people, who after all are political refugees and OUGHT by conventions be helped, and probably, particularly if Berlusconi survives in power, France will patch up relations.

The Arabs will be more convinced that the West is all talk about democracy and freedom and when the new found democracies of ousted dictators flounder and more dictators set up residence, the West will do nothing to stop it and soon make friends as they did before. The fundamentalism will of course grow unbounded - it will creep into Libya where it previously had no chance - and the West will from time to time suffer the outrages of terrorism. Of course the justification for the repressions which follow will all be blamed on the Arabs "unable to organise their own revolutions" etc..., in that smug, better than Thou attitude which we see from time to time. "They don't deserve democracy" one will hear - indeed I can just image an E-E question as to the ability of the "Arab race" to absorb such.

Meanwhile the Saudis send troops into Bahrain, a foreign country under the dictatorial reign of some "king" (of whom Hilary Clinton found so enlightening) to surpress the demonstrations of a disenfranchised Shiite majority, without as much as a wimper from us, oh so terribly worried that the reactors in Japan will contaminate our food, water or air - a technology which we ourselves have developed and ignored the risks.

With all the blood everywhere it reminds me of that old Arab childs rhyme :-

Red blood at night,
Osama's delight,
Red blood in the morning,
Osama's warning.

I'd like to think I'd know what Margaret Thatcher would have done, but she shilly-shallied at the break up of the former Jugoslavia.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35148399
Bigrat
Thanks for presenting your point of view, and I agree with much of what you say. I'm not sure I agree with your view thought that Russia block out of sheer spite. Rather it has more to do with the $4 billion wrapped up in weapons deals. Midn you, what's 4$ billion these days? Still, there's no room for spite in the world of business, and Russians are ruthless at business.

What are Cameron and Hague playing at? Are they just trying to score political points by appearing as genuine humanitarian carers? Do they actually believe that anyone gives a monkey about what UK thinks? When Gadaffi regains control of his land, Hague will have made himself -- and the UK -- an unnecessary enemy.

The fundamentalism will of course grow unbounded - it will creep into Libya where it previously had no chance - and the West will from time to time suffer the outrages of terrorism.

By fundamentalists do you mean groups like the Taliban? If so why do you think they will get into Libya? I should have thought they have no chance there while they have dictator there.

They don't deserve democracy" one will hear - indeed I can just image an E-E question as to the ability of the "Arab race" to absorb such.

Or not ready for democracy. Culturally the Arabic cluster does have a history of being ruled by dynasties where each founder carved out an empire which his heirs later lost, after which a new leader and a new dynasty would repeat the process. So moving to democracy is very new culturally and therefore presetns difficulties, as we see with Iraq.

I am convinced that a move to democracy cannot be based on violence, as this simply replaces the overdog with and underdog who will want to cling to power. It has to be a slow process, and people have to want to move in that direction general. I think we have seen this to some extent in Egypt, but Egypt still has a long way to go.



















0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35148504
Ah...  Magaret Thatcher :-)

Why is it I can look upon her with a fondness now? I think because in way they shes was a speaker and a great statesman (stateswoman doesn't sound right).

It would have been interesting to see her reaction. Since she was around when Lockerbie disaster happened I wouldn't be surprised if she had sent in troops. She supported reagan's bombing back in the eighties.

I know Thatcher didn't like the re-unification of your country, Bigrat. But I think she was starting to lose it a bit then...when she turned up at the meeting with Gorby and pulled out of her handbag a map of who the new germany would look and warned about the threat of the Prussians...lol
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35149122
Since Gadaffi had more or less made peace with the west and was "brought back into the fold", then  the UK government had really no reason to side with the rebels.

Perhaps the western governments like France and the UK oughtn't to have appeared supportive to the rebels, or led them to believe that support was coming, which is what they hoped for.  The only effect this lip service support will have is to make both the rebels and Gadaffi hate the west all the more, in particualr the UK and France.

Reminds me of the 1990s Gulf War Iraq, when the USA encouraged the Iraqi's to rebel then left them to die.


0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35149318
>>I know Thatcher didn't like the re-unification of your country, BigRat

Correction. I live here with my British husband. I was born in Luxembourg.

>>Rather it has more to do with the $4 billion wrapped up in weapons deals

Yes, a shortsighted viewpoint. If Gadaffi looses then more weapons must be bought by the new government. Who will get the fishes, all the little fishes, when the boat comes in?


>>When Gadaffi regains control of his land, Hague will have made himself -- and the UK -- an unnecessary enemy.

What are you playing at? Some sort of real politik or is all of this based on some sort of principle? For I can see neither. The whole problem of the Arab/Israeli  situation is based upon the intransigence of the Arab dictators. They want the status quo to remain, they want a permanent state-of-war towards Israel so that they can keep their dissenting populations under control. In Iraq the stability is threatened by two ouside dictatorships - Syria and Iran. Do you really think that given a choice between continual hardship for some unattainable goal - like the destruction of Isreal - or the comfort of a higher standard of living the people would choose hardship?

As far as violence is concerned, the Americans seemed to have done well. The Europeans are probably still wanting their Kings and Queens and Emporers back, no doubt.

The Arabs deserve a chance.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35149355
>>Perhaps the western governments like France and the UK oughtn't to have appeared supportive to the rebels, or led them to believe that support was coming, which is what they hoped for

That they didn't do, and that's what I'm complaining about. What they have done is freeze Libian money abroad and what with the technicians now left, it is going to be difficult for Gadaffi to get the oil running again and to sell it. Unless the Chinese move in. I'd be very skeptical about that. One would be supporting a megomanic against the rest of the world. Better would be to help get rid of him and then get the oil contract, for Gadaffi has no friends left.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35178574
Why is Gadaffi sudenly the arch-enemy of democarcy? Early in 2000 the Bush administration met with Gadaffi on several occasions and lifted most of the sanctions against Libya, and in 2008 Blair met with Gadaffi. Gadaffi offered reparations for the terrorist acts carried out ealrier in his regime, and had even signed bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Sarkozy.

A rebellion and civil war break out in Libya (we do not know the cause of this) and suddenly Gadaffi is the enemy again. Where's the honour in that?

And what about Bharain, Yemen, Somalia, Iran and Chad? Also, Setting up a no-fly zone means bombing some military airports then shooting down and planes over the zone. Yet in the news we see continued bombing - bombing of armed columns of vehicles, bombing of Tripoli -- bombing that goes far beyond the scope of the UN resolution. Bombing that is clearly assisting the rebels and targeting Gadaffi's military forces, and taking out a few civilians in the process.

The result is unlikely to be a quick resolution to the problem, but a long, drawn out civil war, with far more bloodshed and instability than would have occurred had the west not encouraged the rebels. This would have been over weeks ago.

I'm 100% with Russia on this issue. And further more, instead of spending money on a war, these countries could have perhaps spent that money on helping Japan instead.

But I suppose the west needs a good ol' war now and again. As Napoleon once said "Men cannot sit on bayonets".
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:CCSOFlag
ID: 35181522
I agree.  As long as politics and money run the government, things like this are gonna happen.  Has nothing to do with what makes more sense, what is more effective, or what is helpful.  It's all about politics.  Why do you think we can't even balance our freaking budget?  It's very sad.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35214629
>>Why is Gadaffi sudenly the arch-enemy of democarcy?

He always was. Just because some Western idiots have cow-towed to him over the last ten years does not means that what he was doing to his people was morally OK. I'm not expecting the West to act morally, but at least when they happen to do the right thing, I'm all for it. It is about time on this planet that we gave up supporting dictatorships - at least those which have been going on for thirty odd years.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35215146
Bigrat

Just because some Western idiots have cow-towed to him over the last ten years does not means that what he was doing to his people was morally OK

So you prefer war to diplomacy? Western idiots? They were doing a great job and this would have been the best course to bring the country closer to democracy. You can't just usher in democarcy with a war. Gadaffi probably didn't have very long to go anyway. If the west had been patient a slow, peaceful transition to democracy may have been possible when his sons took over. Changed based on violent revolution is not the best foundation of a democracy. It's follows the traditional pattern of Arab of dynasties, and is likely to result in another strongman.

I can't see why the Arab league would want to encourage democracy - I guess they just want rid of Gadaffi. In don't see how democracy serves the interest of the West either. I think that they too just want rid of gadaffi. But all they have achieved so far is a bloody mess.

Another thing that concerns me is that the rebels have taken over cities but what do we know of the thoughts and feelings of the ordinary citizens of those cities? The rebels have taken refuge amongst their own people in these cities and I doubt that all the citizens there are happy about that. If Gadaffi's forces did that he'd be accused of humanitarian crimes or something.

Everything is presented one-sidedly in the media, and I'm not buying it. What the west is demanding from Libyan government is unreasonable and unrealistic. They are saying it should not shoot the rebels, but they say nothing about the rebels not shooting back. The west are clearly encouraging a civil war and the result is going to be much more devastation and bloodshed than would have occurred if the west had not involved itself.

Gadaffi is no worse than many other Middle Eastern leaders who have denied their people democratic rights. he just has no friends left, and so, like Saddam, becomes a target.

It's ok fighting for what is right, but it seems that the west only get involved in thse humanitarian crusades when it is convenient to do so, for example when there is an economic interest.

-- For Muammar Gaddafi, and hope he survives this --


0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35232756
>> They were doing a great job and this would have been the best course to bring the country closer to democracy

What???????????????

They just maintained the status quo and ensured that the oil continued and paid off Gaddafi to not allow any refugees to go to Europe. And to continue the Gaddafi cult and surpress religion and other opinions. And ensure that the oil and gas continue to run. This you call a GREAT job.

>>If the west had been patient a slow, peaceful transition to democracy may have been possible when his sons took over

I sometimes wonder just where you are in the world? If you don't know about the Gaddafi cult which has been going on for years, theni it is about time you woke up and saw it.

You see the same sort of thing in Syria - 48 years of marshall law - from father to son. No opposition, no free newspapers, no free internet, and arrest and imprisionment without trial.

Just try naming a couple of Arab democracies which aren't ruled by tyrants for the last thirty odd years.

Oh, and by the way, the West didn't start the revolutions in the Arab world.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35239558
Bigrat

I think it is true to say that to go from being terrorist nation to a nation that establishes diplomatic relations with the west is progress. Its also true to say that to go from this to a war, when there was no threat from the nation we went to war with, is definitely NOT progress. The only reason I support Gadaffi is because I hate what the west are doing. My point with these posts is that I object to the west interferring with what is essentially a civil war, and I don't accept the their justification for doing it. Surely you can see that all this is just an excuse to get rid of Gadaffi? It was not a very smart move and I doubt whether more lives will be saved as a result.

If the west had not intervened the rebellion would have been over weeks ago with realtively little loss of life. And afterwards the regime would certainly have realised that it was in trouble and there were needs for reform in the light of all these rebellions spreading across the Arab world. Diplomatic pressure could have helped there also.  

Just try naming a couple of Arab democracies which aren't ruled by tyrants for the last thirty odd years.

Arab lands have always been ruled by people in absolute power, and still are. We are not attacking them for that. We are not in Syria supporting the rebels there. Why? Why are we attacking Libya? Strange that it started out with a UN resolution to impose a no-fly zoen, and resulted in a Nato lead offensives on Gadaffi's ground troops and military headquarters.

Why?

Because:

(1) Libya has oil
(2) Gadaffi has not friends - the Muslims don't like Gadaffi, for example.
(3) Libya had a rebellion and provided an opportunity for the west to go in.

It has nothing to do with the humanitarian cause! This is pure bullcrap. If the western governments were concerned with humanitarian causes (as they would have us believe) then they would have done more in Rwanda. They would have done more in Haita. They would perhaps have spent the billions this war is costing on helping the WORLD overcome a real humanitarian crisis in Japan, and leave Libya to sort out its own problems.

The best thing the UN could do now they are in this mess is to call for a halt on the advance on Gadaffi, send in ground troops so the there is a UN presence in the captured parts, and then make propositions to Gadaffi to step down, and arrange for his exile. What the rebels and the west are doing now is failing to provide Gadaffi and his supporters a realistic peaceful solution. Gadaffi has no choice but to fight, because he's pushed into a corner and they are going for his blood. I think that the western nations who are supposed to be civilised should NOT encourage that.

If the rebels manage to take over Tripoli, what then? The Gadaffi regime will be eliminated and who will fill the vacuum created there? Who will safeguard the formation of a democratic system? These things take time. How do we know the armed rebels will remain united once that a democractic system is in place?  How do we know we won't have another Iraq?
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35241766
Let us take things a bit easier, eh? If the rebels win in Libya, then a government will come to pass just as in Egypt and perhaps in other Arab countries. Yes there is no guarentee that that will not eventually result in yet another dictatorship. The same goes for Egypt, Syria, Jemen and so on. But at least there is a chance that it will happen.

Now you are correct in the assertion that vested interests play a large role, but I don' think that oil is the factor. The real factor is the EEC border and the problems associated with vast numbers of immigrants - econmonic immigrants of course. Why do they come? For the simple reason that their countries are so full of vested interests, clan and tribal dictatorships (if not outright dictatorships) that there is no ecomonic future for these people, and whenever the west has attempted to place aid in these countries, it has ended up in Swiss bank accounts.

The call for action against Ghadaffi was made under the continual news of his troops, mostly mercenaries from abroad (that helps against coup-d'etats) first shooting demonstrators and later dropping bombs on teh armed rebels. This is not a situation which we have in Syria, Jemen nor elsewhere, and hopefully, we won't have such a situation because the dictator will know what he will get.

Now the LAST thing that the UN is going to do is to send in ground troops, for the simple reason that they'd never get a mandate from the Arab league - one may never get them out if they were an action force, or would be ineffective if they were a peace keeping force. Furthermore the West won't risk lives for such an action (Iraq and Afghanistan have been enough) and the Arabs would be too split about who would go in, and what would anybody get out of it except loss of life and limb?

Now onto the West not interferring. It is debatable about how much life would be lost if we had let Ghadaffi win, for there certainly would have been repercussions against those who demonstrated against him. He would almost have certainly closed all doors and installed an even more bleak regime and tolerated even less criticism. The idea, Ghadaffi sitting on the oil wells, that diplomatic pressure would have changed anything is pure wishful thinking - look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe who hasn't even got any oil!

Now this progress bit. Obtaining diplomatic relations has nothing to do with the morality of the regime but more to do with the practicallity of internations relations - trade, passports etc. Given that western companies want to do business in Libya it was only to be expected that some sort of patch up ater Lockerby would take place. Given the border immigration problem, the Iraq situation and so on, the motivation to "bring Ghadaffi back into the fold" has a lot to do with western interests and NOTHING to do with the interests of the Libian people.

For the last FIFTY years there has been virtaully no progress on the Arab-Israeli problem, primarily because the same actors have always been in the field. Today we have a chance that the PEOPLE of the region will have a say and NOT their dictators who are only interested in what they can get out of it.

As far as "supporting" Ghadaffi is concerned you ought to take a real-political position and not a 'my enemy's emeny is my friend" attitude, because it is not the Libian people who are the problem but one tiny dictator. And if we believe in democracy and freedom of expression we must support those force which will bring it even though we don't like their methods (although there is no harm in criticising those methods!)
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35245145
Bigrat

The real factor is the EEC border and the problems associated with vast numbers of immigrants - econmonic immigrants of course. Why do they come? For the simple reason that their countries are so full of vested interests, clan and tribal dictatorships (if not outright dictatorships) that there is no ecomonic future for these people, and whenever the west has attempted to place aid in these countries, it has ended up in Swiss bank accounts.
I'm not convinced that this is the reason why the west is concerned. There hasn't to my knowledge been an influx of Libyan immigrants to the EEC in recent years, unlike there was from Iraq. Unless they were asyslum seekers I don't know which countries would let them in. But may be I am jst ignorant on this matter.

The call for action against Ghadaffi was made under the continual news of his troops, mostly mercenaries from abroad (that helps against coup-d'etats) first shooting demonstrators and later dropping bombs on teh armed rebels. This is not a situation which we have in Syria, Jemen nor elsewhere, and hopefully, we won't have such a situation because the dictator will know what he will get.
I know. But we don't know how this all started, who fired the first shot and so on. And what is a government supposed to do with an armed rebellion, just give in? There were some riots in London recently, were activists broke the windows of banks because many people in the UK are pissed off with banks who whose bosses pay themselves bonuses of £5million every year while the country is experiencing some of the hardest cuts ever as it attempts to fix its deficit. I can understand the anger of these protestors, but Cameron said that these protestors are simply criminals and shall be dealt with accordingly. This is the same Cameron who is backing the armed rebels in Libya - rebels whom we no very little about. The police in the UK are talking about employing new tactics to come down hard on those kind of violent protestors now -- and this is the thing: no government is going to sit back and that kind of thing happen. It's normal to respond in a tough way to that, whether it's in a country where there is absolute rule or a democracy. Thankfully in Egypt it didn't get violent, but in Syria people were shot, while in other Arab countries the rebellions were suppressed. Suppresion is normally what happens but in Libya it escalated into a civil war.

Another example comes to mind. Back in the 1980s, during The Troubles, the conservative government began a shoot-to-kill policy of Irish terrorists. They were to be seen as merely criminals. Then a few years letter another government decided they weren't terrorists but paramilitary prisoners and all 400 of them were released as part of a peace agreement, and the prison where they were kept closed down.

You will not like it when I say this but...but I'll say it anyway. Why do you think dictatorships come about in Arab lands? And African states for that matter? Perhaps there is a reason, and perhaps we should consier what that reason might be and be more cautious about crusading in there and trying to establish democracy. There is one example of a country where we have tried that - Iraq. Just look  that mess - a big, bloody mess.  When you talk about my wishful thinking, think also about the west's wishful thinking in the matter of democracy.

I just read now in the news that Gadaffi is pushing the rebels back east again. I've no idea where this will end but it's fairly reasonable to assume that there will be even greater loss life the more prolonged the conflict is.

If the west had not stepped in, or if the UN had established a presence in the captured towns - then this would not be happening. The conflict would most likely be be over, one way or another. But instead we have this ineffectual half-hearted involvment by the UN that helps no-one and serevs no real purpose. Except perhaps as a NATO exercise.

Meanwhile the Japanese reactors continue to deposit radioactive water into the sea.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35310632
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35310638
Interesting headlines on this story. Read the first two paragraphs and one wonders why those headlines were chosen as they have little to with the article that follows:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12923579

0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35368793
First.....It's a REVOLUTIONARY war...not a CIVIL war.

There is a difference.
These words have specific meaning and implication for the validity of intervention.


Second,
....if one isn't allergic to history books, and one is American, ....one should know that America had help in it's revolutionary war and would likely not exist without that help.

Finally...
The use of military force against an unarmed non-violent demonstration is a crime against humanity, and should not go unpunished.  I hope Gadhafi gets what he deserves.  I think his fate is already decided and is unavoidable after what he's done.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35369053
Finally...
The use of military force against an unarmed non-violent demonstration is a crime against humanity, and should not go unpunished.  I hope Gadhafi gets what he deserves.  I think his fate is already decided and is unavoidable after what he's done.

Apart from Gadaffi's bombast, there is no evidence that he has bombed his own people other than might be caused by collateral damage as a result of the rebels hiding amidst civilians. The same kind of collateral damage of which the rebels and NATO are both guilty. You base your judgements on what the media is serving you, which is what your government wants you to believe. It's because of gullable people like you that they get away with it. This is what makes me so angry about the whole situation. The way people are manipulated into supporting what the government is doing.

You'd better pray that Gadaffi does step down and disappears quietly, because if he does survive he'll probably start a new terrorist campaign against the west, which we would haved asked for.

First.....It's a REVOLUTIONARY war...not a CIVIL war.
So was Russia, 1917.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35369122
"""You base your judgements on what the media is serving you""""
...and you base yours on what ?... first hand knowledge ?  your wild imagination ?


"""Apart from Gadaffi's bombast, there is no evidence that he has bombed his own people """
...says ...YOU...lol.



"""So was Russia, 1917. """"
So was America.... 1775.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35369306
I read other news than just FOX news.

I also follow what middle east specialists have to say, such as these. If you care to read them you'll find that some of my comments are based on these.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114410410950151.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201148174154213745.html

Let me know if you want me to find you more.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:leonstryker
ID: 35369935
First.....It's a REVOLUTIONARY war...not a CIVIL war.
So was Russia, 1917.


Actually it was both a revolution, followed by Civil War (amongst the Revolutionaries)
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35370017
sbtd8631
Jason210 is right.  We should have let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly instead of helping to drag it on.  It is an internal Libyan matter that should be left to them.

This is actually from the concurrent Obama thread but since it's about Libya I have moved it here.

The reason why I said we should have let gadaffi end it quickly is so that Libya wouldn't be torn apart by civil war, and so that there would be less suffering by ordinary citizens. The UN could have helped in other ways, by providing a refugee camp, and by providing food and medical supplies, and then by using political pressure.

What saddens me about Libya more than anything is that up to this incident, the west was making headway with Gadaffi in terms of diplomatic relations. Of course he is unpredictable and dangerous, but it was good to see Gadaffi, who was once funding terrorist activities towards the west, had changed somewhat and had been brought into the fold. A few more years and he would have stepped down and handed power to his more liberal sons. I am certain they would have brought reforms to the country, if not democracy.

Now it's disaster of the first order. The best that can be hoped for is that Gadaffi steps down and a fragile democracy comparable to Iraq is formed, but where there is likely to be years of chaos as differnt groups clamour for power, and where there is a risk of militants taking advantage of the situation. The worst situation is one where Gadaffi continues in power, betrayed by the west and renewed with hate about that, while the defeated rebels would also resent west for not doing enough. I suspect a large portion of the younger gerneration of former rebels would get hooked into muslim extremist groups, as they have nowhere else to turn to.

The whole thing is just a mess. The last thing I'm bothered about are petrol prices. I don't even car. I go to work on a bicycle!
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35370039
""You base your judgements on what the media is serving you"""

...and then you use media to justify your own assertions ??
You lost a few credibility points there.  Especially with the Fox news links.

0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35370049
-links
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35370112
xuserx2000
You lost a few credibility points there.  Especially with the Fox news links.
You never even bothered to open the links did you? If you did you'd know they were NOT FOX news links, but opinions in the form of short essays by Middle Eastern experts from Al Jazeera.
0
Maximize Your Threat Intelligence Reporting

Reporting is one of the most important and least talked about aspects of a world-class threat intelligence program. Here’s how to do it right.

 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35370141
I know that's why I posted  "-links"
I did open the links actually...they are opinion-editorial peices on Al-Jazeera...


You are still using media to back up your assertions, meanwhile you are also saying all other media is misleading and invalid source of information..

That makes no sense.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35370196
>>The whole thing is just a mess. The last thing I'm bothered about are petrol prices. I don't even car. I go to work on a bicycle!

I commute 60 miles one way to get to work. A bicycle is not an option.  I wish it was, I bike on the weekends for exercise and pleasure and would gladly ride to work if I could.  Petrol prices do mean quite a bit to Americans.  Things are spread out here if you do not live in a city and there is NO public transportation outside of cities.  We have to drive everywhere.  
Higher gas prices are a burden.  And they are a burden that contributed to the 2008 meltdown and will cause great harm to our presently fragile economy.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35370781
xuserx2000
I still do not know what you are talking about regarding links. As I said, I never posted any Fox news links, nor did I post news media. You accused me of making stuff up, quite rudely, so I posted links to a couple of articles that I have read recently to suggest otherwise. The articles are opinions of middle-eastern experts whom I follow. These were just two examples. Quite different to the popular media that we are served and which in the beginning, would have us believe that the purpose of this intervention is to protect civilians, although even the popular news channels are giving up on that now.  

I think you are naive to still believe that this is about protecting civilians. It's not, it's a war of opportunity by countries who have their own self-interests at heart, or are too scared of the political repercussions of abstaining. Look at the criticism Germany got for that. Someone even suggested that Germany was not fit to be in the UN. It is an abuse of UN power to try and overthrow a country's government. I weakens the credibility of the UN.

Look at France -- Sarkozy, posturizing to the world that he is a decisive leader and a world policeman. That's his interest. Do you think he cares about Libyan civilians? I must say though that the French actions in Ivory Coast was swift and effective. I just hope that Gbagbo and his family are treated fairly and humanely.

sbdt8631
Yes, sounds tough. 60 miles is a long way. I used to do the same a few years ago but I had one of those small diesel economy/environmental cars otherwise I couldn't have done it.  I was really just making the point that for me it's not fuel prices are not the reason why I said it would have been better if Gadaffi had been allowed to end it quickly. I hate to see war, unrest and tearing a country apart, and I don't believe that democratic reform can happen over night. I think we'll see another Iraq.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35374269
>>it was good to see Gadaffi, who was once funding terrorist activities towards the west, had changed somewhat and had been brought into the fold. A few more years and he would have stepped down and handed power to his more liberal sons. I am certain they would have brought reforms to the country, if not democracy

I do wish you would refrain from writing this sort of stuff. First Reagan bombed Gadaffi into submission (which wasn't sanctioned by anybody) and Bush?Blair rehabilitated him back into the international comunity for anti-Al Qaida support (in fact the Islam in Libya is a Gadaffi cult).

Now these "more liberal sons" who would undoubibly bring in democracy. I presume they are not those sons who spend 2 million dollars on a new years party with Beyonce, nor are they the ones who maltreated personal in a Swiss hotel and got stuck in jail for 2 days, which created an international incident. No there must be other sons involved. Now who might they be?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-son-sparks-crisis-with-arrest-at-swiss-hotel-876809.html

0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35374313
Jason: I see you're having a go at xuserx2000 about the links. he's quite right, they aren't independant well thought out pieces. For example from the first :-

President Barack Obama has chosen Libya as the place to draw a line in the sand........

Well, for anybody who has been following the events, this is NOT what Obama has done. In fact he was pulled into it probably against his better judgement by events and by the principles that Afghanistan and Iraq are somehow not different as Libya and that the Arab League had actually asked him to interfere. The article appears to me to be an American scholar pandering to an Arab newspaper, looking for a controversial opinion, rather than a scholarly piece of analysis, for he asks the question : "Why did Obama not heed this sensible advice?" which he does not answer. he also knows, as a a professor of law that one does not add unjustifiable adjectives into statements or questions, in this case "sensible", for that is a matter of opinion not of fact.

One notes of course at the end of the article :-

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Quite!
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35374494
>>I was really just making the point that for me it's not fuel prices are not the reason why I said it would have been better if Gadaffi had been allowed to end it quickly.

I do think fuel prices are a very good reason why we should not have become involved in the first place.  I mentioned my drive as an example of how this conflict is having an adverse effect on the daily lives of all Americans.  Higher gas prices are not something we can avoid paying and removes money from disposable income.  Higher gas prices also fuels inflation as all goods need to be transported.  As more disposable income is removed from the average family’s budget due to higher gas prices and higher weekly grocery bills, less will be spent purchasing the other goods that fuel our economy, and people are going to lose jobs.
This is what happened in 2008 and is what finally burst the housing bubble, putting the US and the rest of the world with us, into a recession.  I just don't see why removing a dictator who has been accepted by his people for forty years is worth risking the economic welfare of the US and possibly the rest of the western world as well.
As far as the so called moral aspect of replacing Gaddafi, hasn't America's shining example in Iraq and Afganistan shown us all that installing democracy at the point of a gun doesn't work so well.  As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the eventual outcome of Gaddafi leaving will only be a new strongman to replace him.
“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss”
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35374526
Now these "more liberal sons" who would undoubibly bring in democracy. I presume they are not those sons who spend 2 million dollars on a new years party with Beyonce, nor are they the ones who maltreated personal in a Swiss hotel and got stuck in jail for 2 days, which created an international incident. No there must be other sons involved. Now who might they be?

I never said they would bring in democracy. I said reform. They would have no choice if they want to survive. And I've said all along that deomcarcy can't happen overnight.

Anyway it's too late now. Gadaffi and the sons have to go. I'm just saying that it could have been done differently. You evidently think aerial bombardment is a good thing - I don't.

President Barack Obama has chosen Libya as the place to draw a line in the sand........
Ah, so you wouldn't be making a Bob Siemans type of sweeping statement whereby one bad article means that all of them are bad? I never quoted that article in any of my links.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35374568
Also if you look at those articles, there are some very analytical ones like this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114118540870935.html

I have seen the author of this article, Mark LeVine, and been to one or two of his seminars and I can tell you that's a very intelligent lecturer at Lund University. Lund is Swedens equivalent to Oxford or Cambridge.

I would have expected better from you, Bigrat, than to denounce Al Jazeera articles because you found one that expresses an opinion that is off. But if you have a better source of academic articles on the subject, please send me the links. I'll looking at them.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35376194
"""You base your judgements on what the media is serving you""""


If you notice in your link, the word OPINION is tucked in there.

It's an opinion editoria, Op-Ed, ..it's not journalism, and it's not an official source of information regardless of how much of it is true or false.

I find it hypocritical that you make the above statement, without any knowlege of where I get my information, then you procede to back up your own assertions with what amounts to a BLOG....and then you say i'm being RUDE for pointing it out?

Here's a better source than anything you'll find on any news media site...
YOUTUBE

...go there, and watch videos of the armies of Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia ...shooting into crowds of unarmed protesters.   Then...without any commentary, without anyone elses opinions injected, form your opinion based on what you see and imagine yourself standing in that crowd.

"""Gadaffi and the sons have to go"""" =  TRUE
How that happens is not as important as making it happen, this is literally good versus evil, right versus wrong......screw the price of oil.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35376280
""hasn't America's shining example in Iraq and Afganistan shown us all that installing democracy at the point of a gun doesn't work so well. ""


...that remains to be seen.  You act as if they are doomed to fail.
If you open your American history book, you would find a lawless and chaotic America as well, when democracy was still new to us.

Democracy has never radicalized any country... it's known to have the opposite affect when done properly.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35376757
>>screw the price of oil.

Say that when you don't have a job.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 35376876
Jason:  >>Ah, so you wouldn't be making a Bob Siemans type of sweeping statement whereby one bad article means that all of them are bad? I never quoted that article in any of my links.

Sorry but you did here - 11/04/11 09:16 PM, ID: 35369306  

>>I would have expected better from you, Bigrat,

If you want to support your position by quoting articles then you must be very careful to select articles which are careful analyses of the situation. Unsubstianted rants, which often newspapers and TV channels love (because it brings in the readers) are the worst form of citation, as you well know from those who quote Fox news as gospel. Your Mark Levine article is of a better standard as the others I have read, but he too makes the same wrong associations. Yes our governments are financed dominated and to an extent military (especially the US), but they do not tell us how to think nor do the lock us up and torture us just for having a different opinion. And we can vote them out of office without haveing to take up arms to get the new people into power. Yes, I agree that the UN should be reformed, perhaps with Luxembourg on the Security Council would be a good idea!, and yes the banking system puts the wealth in the hands of the wealthy, yes those things are OK and the analysis is correct. But when he writes : "The problem is, of course, that the West clearly has little interest in fostering real democratic development across the Arab world (the glaring silence in the face of army violence in Egypt is the most striking confirmation of this fact)." he goes completely off base. The army there has laid out a plan for democratization and one gives them the months that are necessary to achieve this, and not to dive in (to do what exactly?) as soon as a few protestors get out of hand. The remaining part of his article makes the assumption that only with dictators can one make arms deals. He then goes on about " emerging and recently democratised powers" being somehow able to "demand a refounding of the international system along much more equitable lines" although their economic clout adds up to about nothing, so why should anybody else take any notice of them? I fully understand Mr. Levine's concern about the world economic system, but if you go to the world bank begging they'll attach conditions to the loan, so that it can be repaid, which you won't like. As far as giving money away, we have seen how much "development aid" corrupts and ruins the countries who receive it, and also corrupts the countries who give it - them wanting favours. If anything the Chinese way is the best - do it yourself - and they are NOT wanting Mr.Levine's reforms.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35376990
Xuserx2000
May be you should take a deep breath and READ what I'm posting here, before simply rebutting everything you imagine I am saying? I really don't know why you're talking about Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Saudi. I'm talking about the Western Coalition forces intervention in Libyan and the negative effect it is having, the motives behind that intervention, and the political machinery that allowed that intervention to take place. I'm just asking you to question it, because it's not what it seems. I seem to have triggered some kind of emotional rant from you about democracy and freedom and so on. I have in early posts asked why the west doesn't at least protest to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt? I have already raised this issue.

I find it hypocritical that you make the above statement, without any knowlege of where I get my information, then you procede to back up your own assertions with what amounts to a BLOG....and then you say i'm being RUDE for pointing it out?
You first say my opinions are just my uniformed opinions, and attempt to ridicule me, and then when I refer you to some sources that are at least accessible on the Internet, you imply that those sources amount to a useless blog, ignoring who the authors are. Stop this. I know some of those authors and they specialists in that area. If you want to attack their arguments, then do so. Don't attack Al Jazeera, the concept of editorial opinions, or me just because you don't like what we're all saying. Attack the arguments, and back them up.

Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, adding Libya to the list of failed democracies that require a western armed presence will be a burden on the west's military resources. I can't speak for the rest of the world but UK's forces are already stretched to the limit. Also, think about about the soldiers there who are dying. Is it worth it? No analysis has been carried out on Libyan and what will happen there after it gadaffi goes.

How that happens is not as important as making it happen, this is literally good versus evil, right versus wrong......screw the price of oil.
Good versus evil? Did you know that Sarkozy signed an arms deal with Gadaffi in 2007? Did you know that Sarkozy also tried to sell Gadaffi fighter jets? The vey same jets that France is now using to bomb Gadaffi with. Good and evil is the theme that the governments try to sell you, but the real situation is about realising political and economic goals. It's a game. Gadaffi's no worse than the tyrants of other Arab lands. Saudi Arabia is perhaps the worse because they actually are above all criticism. You NEVER hear the USA criticising Saudi. They just don't do it.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35377083
Xuserx2000
>>this is literally good versus evil, right versus wrong......
Jason210
Good versus evil?

Jason makes good points.
 If this is good versus evil, please explain to me who is good.  Who is evil?  And why.  In my experience, little is that simple outside of a story.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35377133
Bigrat
Thanks for reading the article by Mark Levine.

If anything the Chinese way is the best - do it yourself - and they are NOT wanting Mr.Levine's reforms.
I fully agree. I don't agree with everything Levine is saying, but I just happen to know who he is and I can vouch for him -- he's one of the good guys. Many of those articles are posted by people who are experts within that field and although some of them are less analytical than others, I think that on the whole it's a lot better than Fox news!

I have been thinking about China, also, and I genuinely believe this is the way forward. Unlike the Soviet Union that broke down over night, leading to government officials buying up all business and stealing all the wealth of the country, China seems to be edging towards democracy quite naturally.  Interestingly, North Korea, considered to be the worst authoritarian government in the world, has started experimenting with special administrative areas, like tiny versions of Taiwan and Hong Kong, where supervised capitalism is allowed to operate. North Korea has a terrible human rights record, but things like this give one some hope.

But then if you think they should do left to reform themselves (which is my view) then how can you support what the UN has done in Libya?

the glaring silence in the face of army violence in Egypt is the most striking confirmation of this fact)." he goes completely off base. The army there has laid out a plan for democratization and one gives them the months that are necessary to achieve this
I guess we'll have to wait and see. No-one knows what's going to happen there, but Levine does make an intresting point when comparing Egypt to Libya. Libya doesn't have the same political and miltary beaurocracy that Egypt has...Libya is just Gadaffi, whereas Mubarak was more of a figurehead that could be sacrificed without changing the status quo, although I'm not sure about his conclusions regarding this. I'm more inclined to agree with you, that slow change will take place in Egypt. However in Libya, it's a different story. That will be more like Iraq after Saddam had gone. Everything will have to be created, and there's abig risk that some of the newly created institutions just won't take.  Do you know what I mean?
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35377239
"""You first say my opinions are just my uniformed opinions, and attempt to ridicule me,"""

...uh..no...you did that.  You being combative for no reason now.  I was just pointing it out that you shouldn't make a statement about others being "misinformed" by their choice of "media", while simultaneously using a blog as a source what you consider "real" information.  Who the authors are is irrelevant.

"" I really don't know why you're talking about Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Saudi. I'm talking about ""

I mentioned those other countries ..not necessarily part of this argument. I was just saying that Youtube has a lot of vid posts from real live ordinary people who are directly involved in these conflicts/uprisings.  Video's of Libyans being bombed I consider valid sources of information.


"" I'm just asking you to question it, because it's not what it seems.""
...says you.  Everyone is an expert is what I gather, and everyone has their own ideas of what is considered valid sources of information.

Good versus evil is how I see it, you are welcome to your own opinion.   I will never support a dictatorship, for any country or persons, no matter what the  justifications or the cost of not doing so.  That is my own morality based conviction.   Freedom is a human right, and while we can sit here and argue about whether it's tactically wise, convenient, or popular to intervene... I still believe intervention is not only legal and justified, but rather an obligation of the UN and a key purpose of it's charter.
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:Ron M
Ron M earned 10 total points
ID: 35377348
@sbdt8631


Freedom seeking rebellion = good,

Murderous dictators = evil.

...Is that simple enough?
That's how I see it.


Every scumbag dictator on earth is lucky that i'm not the president of these United States, because there would be a bounty on each of their heads, ...and I would make George Bush look like an isolationist hippy.

I believe the world will be a much better place to live, without any dictators in it.... and I think all free nations on earth should make this goal a priority.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35377488
Yes it's simple enough xuserx200.

0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35378011
xuserx2000
>>Every scumbag dictator on earth is lucky that i'm not the president of these United States, because there would be a bounty on each of their heads, ...and I would make George Bush look like an isolationist hippy.
>>I believe the world will be a much better place to live, without any dictators in it.... and I think all free nations on earth should make this goal a priority.

Good Lord folks, xuserx2000 just declared World War Three.  Who should we attack first, China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, ...?  I read On the Beach.  I'm moving to New Zealand.  The radiation gets there last.
Seriously, how much blood should we spill to accomplish your ideals?  How many young men dying is acceptable?  How many are too much?  And where do the free, "Good", countries get the money to pay for this?  It sounds good on paper, but how exactly does one make this happen in the real world.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35378286
"""Good Lord folks, xuserx2000 just declared World War Three"""
... I didn't say war... I said bounty.  I don't think we should conduct a ground invasion of all the countries you mentioned...however, if those countries should find themselves in a national uprising for freedom against their autocratic governments, I know exactly whose side I would be on.

""how much blood should we spill to accomplish your ideals?""
I would specifically target the dictators with a bounty, international warrants for arrest, and restrict all means of movement and funding with all possible sanctions for their government.  In the event their people rise against them, they would have whatever support I could give them.

""" I'm moving to New Zealand.  The radiation gets there last."""
The longer the world waits to take care of the world's dictator problem...the more likely ducking radiation clouds becomes a reality.  The only real difference between Adolph Hitler and the dictators that exist today, is their level of success and power.  Given the chance, each and every one of them would assimilate or kill you, most likely the latter.

As far as i'm concerned...the autocrats have already declared war on all of mankind by virtue of their existence.  Dictatorship is invalid, and even moresoe when the people of a nation say it is.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35378520
xuserx2000
>>I would specifically target the dictators with a bounty, international warrants for arrest, and restrict all means of movement and funding with all possible sanctions for their government

Seriously, you would like to put a bounty on Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao or Kim Jong-il.  Do you not think their countries would consider that an act of war?  Same goes with warrants restrictions and sanctions.
And how exactly do we pay for all these military actions you would like to take.  Two fronts destroyed Germany.  We are already involved in two and are working on a third.  How many do you think we can afford?  How many before we go bankrupt?  And again how many young men have to die?  You haven't addressed that question.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35379115
"""Seriously, you would like to put a bounty on Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao or Kim Jong-il.""""

Maybe not pre-emptively in most cases...

But If their people rose up against them in protest, and they responded with violence..... I would do exactly that.

I would exploit every opportunity to crush dictatorships around the world whenever the opportunity presents itself.

""" How many do you think we can afford?"""
Enough to make a real difference.

""""How many before we go bankrupt?""""
We're already bankrupt... so what...

""""  And again how many young men have to die?"""
I guess that would depend on how the despots react to my stated goal of exterminating them.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35384154
But If their people rose up against them in protest, and they responded with violence..... I would do exactly that.

This is exactly the problem in Libya. The western coalition decided to throw in their lot with the rebel cause of using violence to overthrow Gadaffi, but failed to offer an attractive escape route for Gadaffi and his gang. Effectively forced into a corner, and faced with the threat of being put on trial for being a dictator, what choice do the regime have but to fight as long as they can? What the west expects of Gadaffi is totally unreasonable. Stop fighting and let the rebels overun you, is basically what they are demanding.

If you don't offer peaceful ways out for the leaders of regimes, but demand their blood instead, blood is what you'll get.

You can see the same thing with Mubarak. Friend and ally to the US for over 30 years, he is dropped by the US at the first sign of trouble, and is now facing criminal charges, after he stepped down quietly - no doubt on advice from the US who saw his resignation as a necessary sacrifice. At the time he stepped down, many Egyptians said that he could step down with dignity and remain in Egypt as a respected former leader. Now they are demanding his blood.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35384382
"" but failed to offer an attractive escape route for Gadaffi and his gang.""


...Escape route ?

The US is not giving Gadhafi an escape route, trust me.  No matter who is president.

The man will be tried for his crimes in international court if he's lucky, and he'll be even more lucky if he doesn't get the death sentence.  If he's not lucky he'll be killed on the spot.



""" Friend and ally to the US for over 30 years""""

You think Mubarak was an ally?  You think he likes America? He doesn't even like his own people.
He was on our payroll to play nice and stay out of our way, but he is not an ally....

A dictator cannot be an ally of the US.  It is impossible because the US is the polar opposite of a dictatorship.  We may tolerate the ones we can't do anything about, because we need resources, but that is all.  Nonetheless, these middle east dictators are blood soaked murderers and theives and they deserve everything they get for what they've done.

"""after he stepped down quietly"""

Justice must be served.  Wouldn't you want justice?
He'll get more respect and rights in his trial than he ever afforded to most people you can be sure of that...
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35385329
It's exactly your type of thinking that's the problem.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35386023
""""It's exactly your type of thinking that's the problem. """""


...no the problem is people thinking dictatorships are valid... when  they aren't.
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35386264
If you are unable to discuss, get lost. Stop spamming this thread with the same lines "Invalid". We've heard you.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35393798
I'm not spamming.
...are you ok ?

Spam is posting the same exact message, over and over...

Using a word more than once is not spam.

It's not spam just because you don't agree with me.

.... or maybe you do agree, but you haven't said one way or the other.

So... do you think dictatorships are a valid form of governance ??
0
 
LVL 11

Author Closing Comment

by:Jason210
ID: 35394131
Thanks for the contributions. I think it's time to close this now since it's not really going anywhere, and xuserx2000 seems want to go off on a tangent impressing upon us the idea that dictatorships are "INVALID" which is not what this question was about.

War is a very serious thing. I find the idea of western governments going about the world using it military machine to impose its way of life and its version of democracy (with its roots of capitalist exploitation) on other cultures and other countries decidedly "undemocratic", especially when they use force to try achieve this. Democracy means of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore, I say let the people of non-democratic countries decide when and if they want democracy, without inteference from the West.

Since we don't and shan't live in those countries we don't have any democratic right to decide what governments those countries should have.

And we ought also to be weary of politicians who tell us they are using military action to "protect civilians". There are civilians all over the world who suffer, and prime example being those who live in Gaza strip, who are subject to frequent, indescriminate bombing raids by Israel - which oddly enough is a democracy. Who's protecting those civilians? Or is that ok because Israel is a democracy?

I gave points to xuserx2000's comment because I think shows very clearly the kind of sentiment that western goverments count on in order to get support for their military actions.
0
 
LVL 25

Expert Comment

by:Ron M
ID: 35394303
""""xuserx2000 seems want to go off on a tangent impressing upon us the idea that dictatorships are "INVALID" which is not what this question was about. """"

I'm sorry you feel that way, however, going back to my very first post...

First.....It's a REVOLUTIONARY war...not a CIVIL war.
There is a difference.
These words have specific meaning and implication for the validity of intervention.


If we were talking about a civil war conflict, rather than a REVOLUTION against government, then the validity of their government most likely wouldn't be part of the discussion.

"""Is this a genocide or a civil war?"""

It's genocide, because it's NOT a civil war...it's a revolutionary war, and an INVALID government is bombing it's own people.

...again, sorry if you disagree but it's not spam and it's completely relevant to the question you asked.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 35395121
Thanks for the points.
0

Featured Post

How to improve team productivity

Quip adds documents, spreadsheets, and tasklists to your Slack experience
- Elevate ideas to Quip docs
- Share Quip docs in Slack
- Get notified of changes to your docs
- Available on iOS/Android/Desktop/Web
- Online/Offline

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
This demo shows you how to set up the containerized NetScaler CPX with NetScaler Management and Analytics System in a non-routable Mesos/Marathon environment for use with Micro-Services applications.
This video explains how to create simple products associated to Magento configurable product and offers fast way of their generation with Store Manager for Magento tool.

708 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

16 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now