What price exactly is the goal of ousting Ghaddafi worth?

[howard112211]

I ask because everything in life comes at a price. And I am not so much talking about an amount of money here, but rather the cost in terms of lives and human suffering (although in some sense one can consider both connected because every dollar that goes into buying war gear could have also gone into saving someones life through peaceful means).

There are a lot of ethical dilemmas here IMO that people are not seeing. Would it, for instance, be moral to completely annihilate an army of conscripts, of say, 100.000 men who were drafted, who in large part are not actively engaged in atrocities but are driving supply trucks (a legal order), to save a group of 500 rebels?

Or more concrete with regards to the situation at hand: Let's say Ghaddafi pulls his forces into populated areas. This is a logical step for him to do, and it looks like he is doing exactly that. Let's say he has a firm grip on three densely populated cities, including the capital.

Is it then a moral act to try to "crack" these cities at what ever cost? Could a group of rebels who supported such an action be really seen as acting in the best interest of their nation?

I think a person in charge of making such decisions should anticipate them, because it is fairly obvious that such ethical dilemmas will arise at some point.

Some people seem to think the simplistic "It doesn't matter what the cost is because it is all Ghaddafi's fault that it had to come to that" notion has merit. I think it is questionable that if one argues like that one has the well-being of the nation of Libya in mind.

[Wilms]

1. In Iraq's case, Maddy Albright thought 1/2 million kid's lives were "worth the cost".

Perhaps she has the President's ear on this one too.

[KittyWampus]

4. How simple your life must be- no hard choices. Thank goodness you'll never run for federal office.

[Wilms]

7. It's true that Maddy said "it was a hard choice". I'll give you that.

:eyes:

[Blue Meany]

2. What would make it worth it would be a system of international

law applied to each country in an equal manner and upheld by an international coalition. The idea is that if a leader breaks international law by using violence against his own citizens or invading another country, he is removed from power and subject to trial in every case. If this were done, there would be very few cases of this kind because the rulers would know in advance that they could not get away with it. In that case, intervention would be worth it because the payoff would not just be in one country but in deterrence in many other countries. But this would require a consistent, principled approach supported by a large number of countries.

[howard112211]

8. To achieve that, we could have started by prosecuting Bush and Cheney.

[obxhead]

3. Billions in oil revenue.

Any price in life and treasure is expendable in the security of oil fields.

[SoCalDem]

5. Won't be known for decades

The white men in suits who drew lines on maps back when they carved up the Ottoman Empire, and then again after each World War, created a time-bomb for people who would live long after they were all gone.

People who lived in the "carved up spaces", were never allowed to see their countries/regions develop normally. they were treated as unruly, ignorant children who needed constant supervision, and discipline from the "wise ones" who also happened to be extracting every resource from them, as fast as they could.

Fast forward to the "information age".. they are pissed, and are not going to take it anymore..

Some will evolve calmly, thoughtfully..other will devolve into chaos.. We cannot control their destiny, and can only aid the ones who ask for it, and then hope they remain "friendly".. We do not OWN them.

[killbotfactory]

6. freedom costs a buck o' five.