Brutal dictator wipes out villages, engages in ethnic cleansing...do you support military action?

[Hugabear]

A brutal dictator engages in the systematic slaughter of tens of thousands (maybe even more) of his own people. He wipes out entire villages, engages in torture, even uses chemical weapons on his own people. Do you support military action to remove that dictator from power?

If so, you just sided with George W. Bush in his decision to take military action in Iraq.

[tabatha]

1. I don't remember the Iraqis begging for a no-fly zone.

I do not remember the UN giving the OK for Iraq.

I do not remember the Arab League backing the invasion into Iraq.

[readmoreoften]

7. Then you don't remember correctly. The Shiites were on our side, remember?

They were going to great us with flowers.

[tabatha]

18. They did not greet us with flowers.

But I watched the Libyans for 30 minutes today - singing, dancing and celebrating the news of the no-fly zone.

That is EXACTLY my point.

[readmoreoften]

23. Then explain this video against intervention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tZ2oTLb2XU

Oh I know already. Now that they're losing they suddenly want intervention!

[tabatha]

29. They still do not want boots on the ground

but if you have followed tweets for the last 2 weeks, there has always been a request for a NFZ.

Tweets today ---------------

Silversworth‎ RT @THerwees: Every #Libyan I speak to cannot contain their jubilation. We are so optimistic about the new, free #Libya.
Twitter - 2 minutes ago
‎
syazwinasaw‎ RT @acarvin: For eating? RT @IbnOmar2005: Ppl slaughtering camels in mizran like they do at weddings to celebrate the no fly zone. #tripoli #Libya
Twitter - 2 minutes ago


USEmbPretoria‎ RT @emeka_okafor: Benghazi erupts in joy at the announcement of the UN mandated no-fly zone #libya
Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English‎ - aljazeera.net
Twitter - 2 minutes ago
‎
syazwinasaw‎ RT @ChangeInLibya: There is an atmosphere today, going into friday & friday prayers that I never felt before in my life. Today will be the day. GN. #libya
Twitter - 2 minutes ago

[readmoreoften]

42. I'll trust real people talking to tweets, thanks.

They never said they don't want "boots on the ground". They said they don't want intervention. That's what we're doing.

[MedleyMisty]

34. Someone does say something about putting pressure on Gaddafi

and preventing the mercenaries from coming into the country. A NFZ might help with that - aren't the mercenaries being flown in?

Please understand that I am not pro-NFZ. Just not anti-NFZ either, and also not so sure that this is an American unilateral invasion and occupation. It may actually be the UN doing something sort of right for once. I'm withholding judgement for now, but if it does turn into an Iraq/Afghanistan style occupation - dude, I can see so many insane things happening from that. For one thing, our revolution here would speed up by quite a bit, with our government trying to shove all these cuts down our throats and then going and occupying a third country. I think that would definitely help get people out in the streets here. Which may be a reason why it won't turn out like that, although with the way our fascists are acting lately who knows.

[readmoreoften]

43. Sure, but I'm pretty sure airstrikes aren't what they meant.

Freezing his assets, yes. Airstrikes are another thing all together.

[Hugabear]

25. And what happens if we accidentally kill a few dozen rebels?

Or bomb a funeral procession, killing children in the process?

Oh wait, that only happens in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That would never happen in Libya. :sarcasm:

[tabatha]

30. Please could you point me to a link that states

civilians will not be killed in Libya?

[Hugabear]

33. Huh?

I never stated that civilians wouldn't be killed. Quite the contrary - once we start bombing, we're going to wind up killing PLENTY of civilians. That's my point. While there might be some (it's not unanimous) rebels who want our assistance, that support can very easily change if we start killing their civilians as well.

[tabatha]

39. I was responding to this

"That would never happen in Libya."

I don't know what the basis of the statement is - because the only person who seems to have said it is you.

[Hugabear]

47. Did you catch the sarcasm thingy after that?

My point was that we've killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I don't know what people expect out of this military action, but it's going to be messy. We're going to wind up killing civilians. We'll probably wind up killing some of the people we're supposed to be protecting. If the recent past is any indication, we'll even wind up killing children. The Libyan rebels' "support" could very easily turn against us, just as it did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Obviously, I don't speak for tabatha, but I think she was accusing you of creating a straw man. nt

[readmoreoften]

46. Yeah, that's not a straw man. I think you mean "red herring." But it's not that either.

Unless you think civilian deaths is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[ZombieHorde]

60. Here is the line I beleive can be viewed as a straw man.

"Oh wait, that only happens in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That would never happen in Libya. :sarcasm:"

Unless the pro-invade-Libya people are claiming there won't be horrific events caused by a war between the US and Libya, the argument being attacked is a fabricated one, and therefore a straw man.

[Hugabear]

62. I'm talking about the Libyan rebels and their support for intervention

In that sense, it's not a straw man. In the examples I gave (okay, maybe Palestine was a bad example since that's Israel), we've managed to turn many of our supporters against us. The Libyan rebels support intervention only because they're getting their asses kicked. If we start killing their people as well, whether it be deliberately or by accident, that support can very easily subside or even turn against us.

[ZombieHorde]

64. I understand your point, and I think it is a valid one,

but the sarcasm line seems like it is attacking an argument that has not been made. I can see why tabatha would ask for a link. That is all I am saying.

[readmoreoften]

63. A straw man is a falsification of a position by taking the most extreme position on it

while rejecting more viable arguments. Example: "I can't believe Obama toured with Jeb Bush. That Republican shares no values with us on education." Strawman: "Oh so Obama is supposed to be a radical who shouldn't be seen with anyone who he even disagrees with a little?" Maybe you could accuse him of moving the goalposts. :shrug:

Moreover, I do think that part of the argument for intervention is that people won't be "killed to be liberated" in this instance.

[ZombieHorde]

66. I agree with your reply, but I would like to add a straw man can also be a fabricated

argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw+man

[readmoreoften]

69. This is nitpicking but it actually is an exaggeration or weakening of a claim.

Simply fabricating an argument is generally a non-sequitur, a red herring ( a type of non-sequitur). Don't mean to nitpick, I just teach this at the university level so it catches my eye. I should probably drop it in the real world. ;) Sorry! Don't mean to be a pedant!

[ZombieHorde]

71. A fabricated argument could be a red herring, but it could also be a straw man, depending on the

example.

An example of a fabricated straw man would be when John Stewart was being accused of false equivalences between Fox News and MSNBC. He said both sides use fallacious argumentation, and some people dropped the 'use fallacious argumentation' bit and fabricated, 'both sides are the same.'

[readmoreoften]

44. And that is just going to be accepted. When we inevitably kill civilians.

That isn't going to fracture and divide the rebel forces?

[Hugabear]

48. I'm sure the rebels will understand

When one of our drones attacks a rebel position, or bombs a building killing several children, I'm sure that the rebels will understand that shit happens in war. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right.

[Hugabear]

8. Then let the Arab League do it

The Arab League would be more than capable of handling this on their own, if they REALLY wanted to.

[readmoreoften]

12. +1

[NoTimeToulouse]

13. Why should they lift a finger when the infidels will do it for them?

[tabatha]

20. See #19

[tabatha]

19. They will be doing it.

Together with the French and the UK.

[Hugabear]

22. Okay, sure...we'll see

If they do, it will only be after the French and British get rid of Libya's air defenses and crush their air forces, effectively making the skies safe for the Arab League to fly. In other words, don't expect to see the AL putting themselves in harm's way.

[tabatha]

35. Please try reading or listening to some news

Everything is just conjecture and baseless shots.



Libya’s deputy UN ambassador, Ibrahim Dabbashi, said five Arab nations have agreed to contribute to a no-fly zone endorsed by the Arab League and authorized by the UN resolution.

“It is a clear message to the Libyan people that they are not alone, that the international community is with them,” said Dabbashi, who has broken with the Qaddafi regime. “It is also a clear message to Colonel Qaddafi and those who support him that there is no place for dictatorship, there is no place for killing the people, there is no place for atrocities. The people of Benghazi will feel safe from this time on.”

[Hugabear]

51. Again...we'll see

Did they specify just what that level of contribution will be? When those "five Arab nations" include their sorties in the first few waves of attacks, then I'll be impressed. When I see Arab planes bombing Libyan air defenses, I'll be impressed. If they wait until the British and French do the dirty work, and then offer to participate in the NFZ, I guess that would still technically be contributing, but I'm not really expecting them to get their hands dirty on this.

[NoTimeToulouse]

26. I have a hard time believing that.

If it happens I'll buy you a theoretical beer.

[tabatha]

41. See #35

[NoTimeToulouse]

49. See #26

[Billy Burnett]

2. Depends on who's dicktater ... ours? or "theirs"? n/t

[onehandle]

3. That was different. Iraq financed and planned 9/11.

Oh wait... Saudis financed and planned 9/11.

My bad.

[KamaAina]

4. But, but, but, Libya's opposition is organized! They even have their own flag!

How can we not support an organized opposition that has its own flag?! :sarcasm:

France and the Arab League (read: Saudi Arabia) could easily engage in military action enforce a no-fly zone if they so desired.

[hlthe2b]

5. Had we not sold out suporting the Kurds after the first Gulf War...

a second might not have occurred--the Iraqi people might have eventually taken him out. Supporting a resistance movement does not equate at all to invading and fighting a war that decides FOR the people, what their future will be.

[bullwinkle428]

6. But we were buddy-buddy with Saddam WHILE he was doing

all of these things, under a previous Republican president!

[readmoreoften]

10. And we've been buddy-buddy with Gaddafi and Mubarak too.

And we're buddy-buddy with the Saudi and Bahraini kings against their own people at this very moment. But for some reason we are moved by the rebels, many of whom say they don't want us there.

[wtmusic]

9. One was initiated from within, the other without.

Not a valid comparison.

[readmoreoften]

11. The shiites were on supposedly on our side in the uprising.

Remember?

[Hugabear]

15. And the Kurds

Both the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north were practically begging for US intervention.

[MedleyMisty]

21. Are all of the Libyans on Twitter military bots?

I'm willing to believe that if given evidence and a reason. But at the moment, I trust them as sources. I understand that they are biased and that of course everyone has different views, but they seem to have really wanted a NFZ, seem to say that all of Libya wanted one and that they are united against Gaddafi, and they seem very aware of what happened in Iraq and are very much against an Iraq-style invasion and occupation. To the point where they say they will fight that like they've been fighting Gaddafi.

Also, from what I know of the UN resolution, the US (I don't use "we" to refer to the US government, because I don't identify with it and I don't feel like it represents me) was not the driving force behind it. I am not aware of any big propaganda push for it, but then I do not watch American state TV. From my news sources it really does not appear to be a unilateral American invasion propagandized with lies, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do indeed imagine that the US government would like that outcome. I know that our government is not motivated by human empathy. I know that our government does not have the best interests of the Libyan people in mind. I imagine our leaders would much rather help Gaddafi contain the revolution because they want to stop the spread of revolution in the Arab region. I am fully aware of what they are doing in Bahrain.

I don't know everything about it. I can't predict everything about it. I'm sitting here comfortably in my living room, just watching the tweets from people in Libya. But I choose to be cautiously optimistic, because they seem happy with the no fly zone, determined to not let it turn into an occupation, and incredibly brave and much more human than the average American.

And no, I do not support the invasion and occupation of other countries for any reason. But I do support helping freedom fighters that have asked for it, under the terms and conditions that they desire, and then getting out of the way - and that should be done by a multi-national body like the UN, definitely NOT by the US operating alone. Is that likely to happen here? I don't know. But to me, it looks a hell of a lot more like that may be what's going on than Iraq ever did.

Also, even if some people in Iraq really did want our help, as far as I know they weren't engaged in an active revolution? And did they really specifically ask to be bombed and invaded and occupied until such time as we topple our own dictators here?

[joshcryer]

65. They probably would not have been so happy if they didn't lose 6 cities to Gaddafi...

...and thousands of them killed. They are really hurting right now and need anything to help boost morale.

[Rage for Order]

14. The cognitive dissonance gets them every time

Oh, I'm sure there will be a few posts telling us how Libya is different because we're doing it for the "right" reasons. Unfortunately, the right reason usually boils down to " a Democrat is in the White House, not a Republican"

[qazplm]

50. Libya is different

for a lot of reasons. Now that does not by itself mean any military action is the right way to go, each situation still has to be judged on its merits to answer that question.

But your apparent belief that it's all the same is the same cognitive dissonance you lament in those who argue this is a different situation.

You'd be better off advocating why this particular situation does not lend itself to military action than making in all honesty a disingenuous argument that this is just like Iraq.

[juajen]

16. Why does any of this matter when we are too broke to finance

this "war" or any of the others. We are not the police of the world; but, if they want us to be, they should share in the cost, and they rarely do. We also cannot be blamed for what went on before now, as we change leaders on a regular basis. We aren't the only country that is broke either. This is a put up job by the industrial-military complex. They do not want to cut their budget.

[Bigmack]

17. Question: Who died and made us God? nt

[ZombieHorde]

61. God died and made us god. nt

[M155Y_A1CH]

24. Too bad we frittered away the war chest

Having already spent our way into insolvency,
we can't possibly justify any more warring right now.

[bemildred]

27. I was OK with removing Saddam, the problem arose when we chose to occupy. nt

[readmoreoften]

28. Funny how that always seems to happen.

You'd think maybe we even planned it all along or something. That control of other nations is, like, our MO or something.

[bemildred]

36. It doesn't always happen.

And I'm not supporting Bush or what he did.

It's certainly true it does happen sometimes, and it shouldn't.

[readmoreoften]

38. Okay then. When didn't it happen exactly?

[bemildred]

45. Grenada? Mexico? Canada? Cuba?

Have you any idea how many counties we have invaded over the years?

Seriously, there are lots or cases where we invaded, installed a new government, and left. That has not always been a good thing either, but there are lots of cases. If you don't want to believe it, then don't.

[readmoreoften]

55. I thought you were saying there are many countries where we invaded and liberated them

for the better. Misunderstanding. My point is that it has never been a good thing and we should learn.

[bemildred]

57. We have done good once or twice, it's not the way to bet.

But it IS a good thing when we do, and Libya certainly falls in that category (IMHO) if we did it.

[Hugabear]

56. Mexico, Cuba?

We only seized a huge part of Mexico and made it our own. And we did occupy Cuba for a few years after the Spanish-American War.

[bemildred]

58. Well, there are lots.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Canada, we never installed a government there.

Edit: but we have been all over Central America, some countries multiple times.

[JVS]

67. I'm beginning to believe that both the policy makers and a lot of posters are the kind...

of people who upon seeing dog droppings in their yard immediately kick them out toward the street. It would really be helpful if more people stopped and considered what the next step would be an what their contingency plan is in case something goes wrong.

[lonestarnot]

32. That was not the original lie/reason we were lied into that one.

[bemildred]

37. That is true. nt

[bluestateguy]

31. By the U.S.? No.

The George W. Bush of the 2000 campaign sounded much more reasonable, arguing that we cannot be the world's policeman and be endlessly involved in nation building.

I wish he had stuck to that approach.

[Unvanguard]

52. Would I have supported a no-fly zone in the midst of an imminent threat of humanitarian catastrophe?

Yes. Especially to support a rebellion that seemed likely to succeed and make things better.

The wholesale invasion, occupation, and "restructuring" of a country--entirely at the instigation of the invader--is an entirely different issue from what is going on in Libya.

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. As long as you also realize you sided with Clinton's decision to intervene in the former Yugoslavia

Don't let anyone kid you. We invaded Iraq for oil, and because we had the misguided notion we'd end up with a Middle Eastern client state (think Iran when the Shah was there).

[BlueCheese]

54. There is much more international legitmacy here.

The UN has just authorized military intervention, which never happened with Iraq.

Even the Arab League, which I imagine is never particularly eager to see western countries bombing Arab ones, has asked for a no fly zone. They've essentially disowned Gaddafi.

Just because Bush completely bungled everything about Iraq doesn't mean we should never take military action again.

[ZombieHorde]

59. The main reason we invaded Iraq was to stop their nuclear program,

which turned out to be a fabrication. Many of us did not believe Hussein had an actual nuclear program because of the day's whistle blowers, the region's oil resources, and the simple fact most people on this board have a difficult time believing anything a Republican says.

Additionally, Saddam Hussein's most heinous actions were done years before we invaded. Although this second point is less important, I feel it is still valid when contrasting the Libyan situation with the Iraqi situation.

Please note, I am not arguing for war, I am just arguing against your argument.

[Iterate]

68. I favor a UN resolution sanctioning nonsensical historical metaphors.

As I see it, Hitler was the only Hitler, Iraq the only Iraq, 1939 the only 1939...and if think it's all the same I have no help for you.

[pampango]

70. The US act alone? NO. The UN act to protect civilians? YES.

Obviously, each case has a practical consideration as to whether any action will be effective against a particular genocidal dictator, but in principle I believe in collective action to protect civilians when national governments don't.

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:

Just Cause
Right Intention
Final Resort
Legitimate Authority
Proportional Means
Reasonable Prospect