U.N. Council approves "all necessary measures" in Libya

[InExile]

thoughts on the situation?

[open mind]

there are no good options....i'm taking a wait and see approach, but i'm currently leaning toward thinking this is a bad idea.

[InExile]

good source for facts (I know this is not common round here) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live

[GuitarR0cker1]

Good!

[saysmydoctor]

YAY, A THIRD WAR!
x

[Love As Arson]

They do not have the best interests of Libyans at heart.

[saysmydoctor]

They do not have the best interests of Libyans at heart.
Yup, personally think this damages the legitimacy of the rebels.

[Love As Arson]

Yup, personally think this damages the legitimacy of the rebels.
Agreed. It is difficult to have legitimacy when your "allies" are causing more death amongst civilians.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I can't believe you guys are seriously arguing that this is a negative decision and somehow imperialistic. Libyans almost universally revile Gadaffi except members of his own tribe, parts of the military and those who want to be on the winning side. Once the tide starts turning we'll see how Libyans treat Gadaffi and his supporters, it won't be pretty.

Motives don't matter as much as ends and the end results will be beneficial, therefore I support this action. I support the existence of a Libya with more freedom and equality over a Libya with a political cleansing and persecution.

This isn't an issue that has shades of gray like Iraq or Afghanistan, this is pretty black and white. Western powers don't have to be a party in the formation of a new Libyan government to help remove Gadaffi. I doubt they will be either. I'm sure they'll exert influence but this would have happened even if the rebels won on their own.

[caveBEAR]

good source for facts (I know this is not common round here) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live

What's not common? The Guardian or 'facts'?

I'm leaning towards the answer that makes you seem more like a tool...

[InExile]

What's not common? The Guardian or 'facts'?

I'm leaning towards the answer that makes you seem more like a tool...

FACTS, how do they work?

[Love As Arson]

I can't believe you guys are seriously arguing that this is a negative decision and somehow imperialistic.]Libyans almost universally revile Gadaffi except members of his own tribe, parts of the military and those who want to be on the winning side. Once the tide starts turning we'll see how Libyans treat Gadaffi and his supporters, it won't be pretty.Motives don't matter as much as ends and the end results will be beneficial, therefore I support this action. I support the existence of a Libya with more freedom and equality over a Libya with a political cleansing and persecution
I don't deny Libyans despise Gaddafi. He is a brutal dictator. My point of contention lies with the idea of intervention with a rebellion that originated by the people of Libya. As such, motives are integral to understanding why there is a push for intervention and we must also understand why the people are revolting. It is not simply the result of some abstract desire for freedom; rather, it is directly connected to the economic policies undertaken by Gaddafi, and praised by the IMF, which implemented a neoliberal order that hastened an explosion of anger. Given that this is the case, the aims of the revolution are diametrically opposed to the desires of the western countries who rely on the IMF for economic hegemony; the west understands this and hopes to intervene so as to keep neoliberal policies in place and appease the people by getting rid of Gaddafi.

[caveBEAR]

FACTS, how do they work?

That's about the height of what I've come to expect of you at this point...

[Scrandon]

good source for facts (I know this is not common round here) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live
Are you at least going to provide us with your enlightened opinions on the matter?

[caveBEAR]

Are you at least going to provide us with your enlightened opinions on the matter?

He's got nothing more than lifting an overdone ICP reference. It's actually kinda pathetic.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't deny Libyans despise Gaddafi. He is a brutal dictator. My point of contention lies with the idea of intervention with a rebellion that originated by the people of Libya. As such, motives are integral to understanding why there is a push for intervention and we must also understand why the people are revolting. It is not simply the result of some abstract desire for freedom; rather, it is directly connected to the economic policies undertaken by Gaddafi, and praised by the IMF, which implemented a neoliberal order that hastened an explosion of anger. Given that this is the case, the aims of the revolution are diametrically opposed to the desires of the western countries who rely on the IMF for economic hegemony; the west understands this and hopes to intervene so as to keep neoliberal policies in place and appease the people by getting rid of Gaddafi.
Not to mention, until recently we largely "supported" Gaddafi.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I don't deny Libyans despise Gaddafi. He is a brutal dictator. My point of contention lies with the idea of intervention with a rebellion that originated by the people of Libya. As such, motives are integral to understanding why there is a push for intervention and we must also understand why the people are revolting. It is not simply the result of some abstract desire for freedom; rather, it is directly connected to the economic policies undertaken by Gaddafi, and praised by the IMF, which implemented a neoliberal order that hastened an explosion of anger. Given that this is the case, the aims of the revolution are diametrically opposed to the desires of the western countries who rely on the IMF for economic hegemony; the west understands this and hopes to intervene so as to keep neoliberal policies in place and appease the people by getting rid of Gaddafi.

Not to mention, until recently we largely "supported" Gaddafi.
Ehh I'll agree with parts of this. Revolts are definitely happening due to economic inequalities and food price mostly, not the idea of freedom though the revolts have become explosive across the Middle East because of the authoritarian nature of Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain etc. I don't think the economic changes have come from some neo-liberal order but from the conventional wisdom that has been formed over the past few decades that has forced most nations in the Middle East to have Friedman-esque policies. This conventional wisdom has been constantly proved wrong, I think this decade will destroy any more austerity/shock therapy/free market non-sense. The mass unpopularity of austerity in Europe and America has shown that the people won't sit on their ass any longer. A new political paradigm is coming.

Wow that was a tangent. I mostly agree with you guys, I just feel that lots of bloodshed and future consequences could be prevented by intervening with agressive airstrikes. The rebels are going to lose without our help and there would be lots of massacres of rebels and big crackdowns for Benghazi because of it. I think NATO is going to have lots of influence on the new government but it won't be a puppet state by any means and without our own forces on the ground or peacekeepers, Libya would keep most of their sovereignty intact. I just wish that Tunisia and Egypt would have done more to assist the rebels. I think they would have the moral authority to actually intervene with ground forces and not be viewed as imperialists.

[saysmydoctor]

We'll avoid bloodshed, obviously, with military intervention. Because that's never led to more bloodshed before.

[GuitarR0cker1]

We'll avoid bloodshed, obviously, with military intervention. Because that's never led to more bloodshed before.
A quick and fast air intervention involving heavy airstrikes on military targets would certainly avoid more bloodshed than letting the civil war drag on for another month until its bloody, awful conclusion in which thousands would be slaughtered and where there would be a huge crackdown on any rebel supporters. I'm sure any vocal rebel supporters would be shot. There would surely be another revolution sometime in the future that would be far more bloody involving massacres of Gaddafi's tribal members and the military. Yeah not a pretty situation.

There is no reason for an insurgency to develop because the rebel movement in Libya is popular. There's little ethnic strife here. There will probably be no western military occupation. I doubt that the end game will have much violence at all. I'm just saying that comparisons between Libya and Iraq or Libya and Afghanistan really aren't warranted. This is entirely different and has nothing to do with ethnic or religious strife or imperialism. Kill the fucking fascist pig and his goons, and things will fall into place easier than expected.

[open mind]

A quick and fast air intervention involving heavy airstrikes on military targets would certainly avoid more bloodshed than letting the civil war drag on for another month until its bloody, awful conclusion in which thousands would be slaughtered and where there would be a huge crackdown on any rebel supporters. I'm sure any vocal rebel supporters would be shot. There would surely be another revolution sometime in the future that would be far more bloody involving massacres of Gaddafi's tribal members and the military. Yeah not a pretty situation.

There is no reason for an insurgency to develop because the rebel movement in Libya is popular. There's little ethnic strife here. There will probably be no western military occupation. I doubt that the end game will have much violence at all. I'm just saying that comparisons between Libya and Iraq or Libya and Afghanistan really aren't warranted. This is entirely different and has nothing to do with ethnic or religious strife or imperialism. Kill the fucking fascist pig and his goons, and things will fall into place easier than expected.

in the past no fly zones haven't impacted a dictators ability to massacre on the ground all that much.....so if the aim is to prevent massacre the international community must bring in ground troops......and that adds all kinds of complications.

[EliteCombine]

Its about time something is done, without any intervention the rebels are going to end up losing, I mean it seems like their fighting a losing battle already. But I agree that a no-fly might not be enough.

[InExile]

Are you at least going to provide us with your enlightened opinions on the matter?

I was just trying to facilitate discussion first and then possibly jump in.....but I was too busy getting trolled.

[Scrandon]

I was just trying to facilitate discussion first and then possibly jump in.....but I was too busy getting trolled.Well poor you

[Chemical Love]

Obama just said the US wont be sending in ground troops, do thats good.

[InExile]

Well poor you

Thank you for your concern.

[S7ranburgLar]

R2p

[saysmydoctor]

Also, a no-fly zone for a regime with a mediocre air force is just a colossal waste of money.

[saysmydoctor]

A quick and fast air intervention involving heavy airstrikes on military targets would certainly avoid more bloodshed than letting the civil war drag on for another month until its bloody, awful conclusion in which thousands would be slaughtered and where there would be a huge crackdown on any rebel supporters. I'm sure any vocal rebel supporters would be shot. There would surely be another revolution sometime in the future that would be far more bloody involving massacres of Gaddafi's tribal members and the military. Yeah not a pretty situation.

There is no reason for an insurgency to develop because the rebel movement in Libya is popular. There's little ethnic strife here. There will probably be no western military occupation. I doubt that the end game will have much violence at all. I'm just saying that comparisons between Libya and Iraq or Libya and Afghanistan really aren't warranted. This is entirely different and has nothing to do with ethnic or religious strife or imperialism. Kill the fucking fascist pig and his goons, and things will fall into place easier than expected.
Except for all the tribal conflict.

[saysmydoctor]

When's the Yemen intervention coming?
(http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/18/yemen_protesters_killed)
Saudi Arabia has Bahrain covered.

The Imperial Presidency? (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/andrewsullivan/rApM/%7E3/VcZB1vrESt4/click.phdo)

Also: the Arab "Partners." (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/andrewsullivan/rApM/%7E3/pqVUWYyv1rA/click.phdo)

[Love As Arson]

Ehh I'll agree with parts of this. Revolts are definitely happening due to economic inequalities and food price mostly, not the idea of freedom though the revolts have become explosive across the Middle East because of the authoritarian nature of Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain etc. I don't think the economic changes have come from some neo-liberal order but from the conventional wisdom that has been formed over the past few decades that has forced most nations in the Middle East to have Friedman-esque policies. This conventional wisdom has been constantly proved wrong, I think this decade will destroy any more austerity/shock therapy/free market non-sense. The mass unpopularity of austerity in Europe and America has shown that the people won't sit on their ass any longer. A new political paradigm is coming.

Wow that was a tangent. I mostly agree with you guys, I just feel that lots of bloodshed and future consequences could be prevented by intervening with agressive airstrikes. The rebels are going to lose without our help and there would be lots of massacres of rebels and big crackdowns for Benghazi because of it. I think NATO is going to have lots of influence on the new government but it won't be a puppet state by any means and without our own forces on the ground or peacekeepers, Libya would keep most of their sovereignty intact. I just wish that Tunisia and Egypt would have done more to assist the rebels. I think they would have the moral authority to actually intervene with ground forces and not be viewed as imperialists.
Do you remember NATO's intervention in Kosovo, and the casualties, as well as war crimes, that occurred on behalf of this humanitarian mission? As for common ideas regarding economic policies, Friedman was one of the people pushing for neoliberalism.i In any event, I do not think you understand that there is no such thing as benevolent force on the part of the dominant countries; these are the same ideas that were used during the colonialism of the past few centuries and it is understood that it was simply a cover for exploitation.

[Zeran]

I don't deny Libyans despise Gaddafi. He is a brutal dictator. My point of contention lies with the idea of intervention with a rebellion that originated by the people of Libya. As such, motives are integral to understanding why there is a push for intervention and we must also understand why the people are revolting. It is not simply the result of some abstract desire for freedom; rather, it is directly connected to the economic policies undertaken by Gaddafi, and praised by the IMF, which implemented a neoliberal order that hastened an explosion of anger. Given that this is the case, the aims of the revolution are diametrically opposed to the desires of the western countries who rely on the IMF for economic hegemony; the west understands this and hopes to intervene so as to keep neoliberal policies in place and appease the people by getting rid of Gaddafi.

i agree with the rest of your points, but i'd also just like to point out that food prices - which have been a major motivation for the arab revolts - have risen so dramatically recently as a result of poor harvests and such due to the effects of climate change; things like the massive heat wave in russia last summer. no doubt neoliberalism and the imf have played an inevitably large role in creating such a situation, but they are not the only factors to consider (at least in the example of food prices).

[Zeran]

The Imperial Presidency? (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/andrewsullivan/rApM/%7E3/VcZB1vrESt4/click.phdo)



just read this, and i agree with his general point. but he errs in a couple ways. for one, he calls obama's presidency more imperialist than bush's, which i find highly disagreeable; not that he has not also been imperialist, but the fact is bush lied and manipulated the country into engaging into two separate invasions and occupations of sovereign countries where thousands if not hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed. there is no way the bush presidency comes before the obama one in terms of imperialism.

secondly, he takes up the moral high-ground in complaining that the united states and obama are not intervening in places like yemen or bahrain. andrew sullivan was, if memory serves, a leading proponent of the invasion of iraq (though he has since changed his stance). what he doesn't state, which i feel he should, is that every u.s. president has displayed imperial ambitions that cater to america's supposed national interests - regardless of party affiliation or ideology. this i feel is more a product of the corrupt functioning of the u.s.'s system of government rather than a personal fault of obama; actions such as these and others that the author apparently condemns would be taken and will be taken by every government and presidential administration to take office.


if this seems like a bit of a rant, i wanted to email these comments to andrew sullivan but found no way of getting his email address.

[Healthy Scratch]

i'm admittedly uneducated about this situation, so bash away if you like, but if people decide to arm themselves and rebel against their government, shouldn't that government have the right to fight the rebellion?
i'm not understanding why the rest of the world is stepping in here.

[Love As Arson]

i'm admittedly uneducated about this situation, so bash away if you like, but if people decide to arm themselves and rebel against their government, shouldn't that government have the right to fight the rebellion?
i'm not understanding why the rest of the world is stepping in here.
The government has no rights other than those afforded to it by the people. If the government is illegitimate and oppressive, as all are in one form or another, then it must be dismantled and replaced.

i agree with the rest of your points, but i'd also just like to point out that food prices - which have been a major motivation for the arab revolts - have risen so dramatically recently as a result of poor harvests and such due to the effects of climate change; things like the massive heat wave in russia last summer. no doubt neoliberalism and the imf have played an inevitably large role in creating such a situation, but they are not the only factors to consider (at least in the example of food prices).

Mainstream economists have usually described the global food crisis as a food “shortage,” but the shortage has been greatly exacerbated by the merciless laws of the free market. In many cases, the problem is not an immediate shortage of food but merely a shortage of the money to pay for it. World Food Program executive director Josette Sheeran recently remarked about sub-Saharan Africa, “We are seeing more urban hunger than ever before. Often we are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to afford it.”

The agricultural/food business is now the second most profitable industry in the world, lagging only behind pharmaceuticals. Indeed, the automaker Mitsubishi, which also controls the second-largest bank in the world, has become one of the world’s largest beef processors, demonstrating the degree to which capital has flocked to the agribusiness sector. The World Bank’s World Development Report 2008 heaped approval on the role of agribusiness, commenting, “The private agri-business sector has become more vibrant. New, powerful actors have entered agricultural value chains and have an economic interest in a dynamic and prosperous agricultural sector and a voice in political affairs.”

But just as agribusiness wiped out small U.S. farmers in the 1980s, it has repeated this pattern around the world ever since. As global justice activist Vandana Shiva wrote in 2006, in India “without market regulation agribusiness corporations will make profits selling costly seeds, buying cheap farm produce, and locking farmers in debt. This has been the process by which the small family farmer has disappeared in U.S.A, Argentina, Europe.”

Now the law of supply and demand has dictated that the new market for biofuels should reduce the production of corn for food by 25 percent in the U.S.—triggering a man-made shortage and a rise in corn prices. Speculators have been hoarding crops on the expectation that prices will rise further. Meanwhile, investors around the world have been fleeing the falling dollar to buy up commodities such as rice and wheat, adding to the speculative momentum and forcing staple prices higher for the world’s poorest people.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-food.shtml

[jbaseball44]

Not sure if this is a new development but it looks like France and maybe Britain have sent military planes in.

[saysmydoctor]

i'm admittedly uneducated about this situation, so bash away if you like, but if people decide to arm themselves and rebel against their government, shouldn't that government have the right to fight the rebellion?
i'm not understanding why the rest of the world is stepping in here.
Guess Britain was justified back in the day.

[Healthy Scratch]

Guess Britain was justified back in the day.
i wouldn't argue that.

[saysmydoctor]

i wouldn't argue that.
:rolleyes:

[mattyrocks]

The government has no rights other than those afforded to it by the people. If the government is illegitimate and oppressive, as all are in one form or another, then it must be dismantled and replaced.





http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-food.shtml


the article in that link is extremely depressing.

[Healthy Scratch]

:rolleyes:
put it this way, i wouldn't expect the rest of the world to get all up in arms about britain's actions.

[open mind]

put it this way, i wouldn't expect the rest of the world to get all up in arms about britain's actions.

spain and france did....there was some german support also.

[Healthy Scratch]

spain and france did....there was some german support also.
i understand it happens. i just personally don't like the idea of intervening in someone else's civil war.

[open mind]

i understand it happens. i just personally don't like the idea of intervening in someone else's civil war.

nor do i.

[David87]

THe dude's been a thorn in the side of the west for years and the rebels apparently want freedom and democracy....and in response the dude is bombing the hell out of his own people.


I understand why other nations want to put a stop to that.

[saysmydoctor]

i understand it happens. i just personally don't like the idea of intervening in someone else's civil war.
I don't either, but that's not what you were arguing. You made it seem like Gaddafi and the Libyan government's response was justified, stamping out a rebellion. Like there was no precedent for rebellions against government or something like that.

[mattmatumbo]

Old news, but French pilots have opened fire on military vehicles around Benghazi, US warships have launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, and David Cameron stated that UK war planes (probably Tornado class) are on their way to battle.

http://www.france24.com/fr/20110319-revolte-libyenne-temps-reel-revolution-attaque-benghazi-onu-resolution-conseil-securite-zone-exclusion-aerienne-kadhafi

[Nuns On A Bus]

Guess it's pretty clear then that this isn't just a no-fly zone, and that we're willing to attack the Libyan military as well. Looks like the rebels aren't really at much of a risk of losing the war anymore.

Also I agree with you GuitarR0cker, I really can't see how helping out the rebels to avoid a humanitarian disaster can be seen as a bad thing.

[mattyrocks]

gaddafi has threatened to attack civilian targets in the mediterranean.

[saysmydoctor]

I always thought Congress had declare war.

[Irishboyv2]

America has stepped in, this guys fucked. Just kidding, but in all honesty it probably wont be long before we wipe out their ground/air forces.

[saysmydoctor]

It better not take long, have you seen how much we pay for this shit? His air force better be destroyed yesterday at the price we pay.

[Irishboyv2]

Indeed, you speak the truth. We need to pull out of Iraq, we're done with that shit. Lets get this Libya shit done, go back home and stop fucking with every one for christ sake.

[Love As Arson]

Guess it's pretty clear then that this isn't just a no-fly zone, and that we're willing to attack the Libyan military as well. Looks like the rebels aren't really at much of a risk of losing the war anymore.

Also I agree with you GuitarR0cker, I really can't see how helping out the rebels to avoid a humanitarian disaster can be seen as a bad thing.

Because it allows the west to set the terms in Libya under the auspices of helping to rebuild.

[mattmatumbo]

I always thought Congress had declare war.

My poli-sci prof said it's not technically "war". Same thing happened when Bush jr. invaded Iraq, right? I can't remember the details from that, though.

[Zeran]

how many civilians have died as a result of western intervention?

[Nuns On A Bus]

Because it allows the west to set the terms in Libya under the auspices of helping to rebuild.

Wouldn't the UN be responsible for doing that since the intervention is through the UN?

[Nuns On A Bus]

Also, some liberal Democrats aren't too sure (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html) about the constitutionality of the missile strikes.

[saysmydoctor]

My poli-sci prof said it's not technically "war". Same thing happened when Bush jr. invaded Iraq, right? I can't remember the details from that, though.
The semantics of foreign policy. Oh, they're not prisoners-of-war, they're enemy combatants. They're playing word games in order to get around the law, that's all that's happening.

[mattmatumbo]

The semantics of foreign policy. Oh, they're not prisoners-of-war, they're enemy combatants. They're playing word games in order to get around the law, that's all that's happening.

True.

[Nuns On A Bus]

Looks like the Libyan gov't has started distributing weapons to around a million people. Somehow I get the feeling that the worst is still yet to come!

[Nuns On A Bus]

Also the Arab League shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3) that they either have no idea what a no-fly zone entails or they're simply trying to make sure that they don't look like they support something they originally advocated.

[Irishboyv2]

I agree with you, I think the worst is yet to come. I don't think it's for us either, I mean aside from the fact that we now have another enemy if his government is not ousted.

[Dan1234]

Also, some liberal Democrats aren't too sure (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html) about the constitutionality of the missile strikes.

Isn't this the same fucking shit that happens on every issue?? The government does something fucked up and only like 20 or 25 liberal democrats stand up and protest, then the liberal democrats get totally crushed and lose to the republicans and the rest of the sellout democrats and we all get fucked.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Isn't this the same fucking shit that happens on every issue?? The government does something fucked up and only like 20 or 25 liberal democrats stand up and protest, then the liberal democrats get totally crushed and lose to the republicans and the rest of the sellout democrats and we all get fucked.
Yeah I'm not really seeing how this is "fucked up" in the slightest. Maybe the tax cut compromise was fucked up or the way Democrats handled health care reform or financial reform but not America participating in a UN approved no-fly zone to help remove a dictator with little support and to protect civilians.

Bush ruined the idea of humanitarian military interventions. Another reason to consider him a piece of shit.

[open mind]

Yeah I'm not really seeing how this is "fucked up" in the slightest. Maybe the tax cut compromise was fucked up or the way Democrats handled health care reform or financial reform but not America participating in a UN approved no-fly zone to help remove a dictator with little support and to protect civilians.

Bush ruined the idea of humanitarian military interventions. Another reason to consider him a piece of shit.

i think clinton did a pretty good job of that beforehand.....and the situation in libya is much closer to what happened in kosovo then it is to iraq.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq33.html

[GuitarR0cker1]

i think clinton did a pretty good job of that beforehand.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq33.html
Well, that too (fuck clinton, i'm not a fan).

I would hesitate making comparisons between this and Kosovo though. This has all of the dimensions of a political civil war, not an ethnic one and it isn't multi-dimensional at all. I seem more gung-ho on Libya than I really am, I'm just annoyed with the hand wringing over motives as opposed to outcomes. As a utilitarian it annoys me to see my bros on the left worried about the intentions of the no-fly zone when they should be worried about the outcome which will surely be better than a world without the no-fly zone in place.

But yeah it isn't exactly new news that a) US/allies don't really care about democracy or that b) too much power lies with the presidency regards to military options since the 50s. You can't change these facts by opposing intervention in Libya on principle. I'm sure this is mostly about realpolitik so that it looks like the west still has some muscle to get rid of despots and making sure a new regime in Libya would be friendly towards Chevron and all of the European consortiums/corporations that control the oil. But at the same time there's humanitarian aspects to the intervention. I'm sure this was also to show that brutal crackdowns can have consequences for dictators and that they should hesitate from employing such tactics even if they're the most effective because the big guns will come in.

[open mind]

Well, that too (fuck clinton, i'm not a fan).

I would hesitate making comparisons between this and Kosovo though. This has all of the dimensions of a political civil war, not an ethnic one and it isn't multi-dimensional at all. I seem more gung-ho on Libya than I really am, I'm just annoyed with the hand wringing over motives as opposed to outcomes. As a utilitarian it annoys me to see my bros on the left worried about the intentions of the no-fly zone when they should be worried about the outcome which will surely be better than a world without the no-fly zone in place.

But yeah it isn't exactly new news that a) US/allies don't really care about democracy or that b) too much power lies with the presidency regards to military options since the 50s. You can't change these facts by opposing intervention in Libya on principle. I'm sure this is mostly about realpolitik so that it looks like the west still has some muscle to get rid of despots and making sure a new regime in Libya would be friendly towards Chevron and all of the European consortiums/corporations that control the oil. But at the same time there's humanitarian aspects to the intervention. I'm sure this was also to show that brutal crackdowns can have consequences for dictators and that they should hesitate from employing such tactics even if they're the most effective because the big guns will come in.

politics is always very multi-dimensional, and the motives kind of control what the outcome will be.

if you think we aren't there for democracy and are really there just for the money and to showoff that we still have muscle how can you still support this? there were humanitarian aspects with the intervention in kosovo.....hell that was the entire (public) rationale for it.

[GuitarR0cker1]

politics is always very multi-dimensional, and the motives kind of control what the outcome will be.

if you think we aren't there for democracy and are really there just for the money and to showoff that we still have muscle how can you still support this? there were humanitarian aspects with the intervention in kosovo.....hell that was the entire rationale for it.
Because of the outcome which will be better for Libya, democracy around the world and human rights of course. If this resolution didn't pass in the UN, we'd be talking about Benghazi being overrun and hundreds upon hundreds of rebel deaths.

We should have intervened earlier. It would be less of a risk, would have taken less time and a lot of needless deaths would have been prevented.

[open mind]

Because of the outcome which will be better for Libya, democracy around the world and human rights of course. If this resolution didn't pass in the UN, we'd be talking about Benghazi being overrun and hundreds upon hundreds of rebel deaths.

We should have intervened earlier. It would be less of a risk, would have taken less time and a lot of needless deaths would have been prevented.

why are you so sure of that? much of modern history seems to indicate that the situation could be made much worse as a result of intervening....vietnam, afghanistan, kosovo, colombia, and iraq come readily to mind just off the top of my head.

intervening earlier wouldn't change why we were there in the first place.

check out this list of countries that in the last hundred or so years that have dealt with american interventions (it ain't short)....and i don't think the majority of them improved the lives of the citizens living in them.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[GuitarR0cker1]

why are you so sure of that? much of modern history seems to indicate that the situation could be made much worse as a result of intervening....vietnam, afghanistan, kosovo, colombia, and iraq come readily to mind just off the top of my head.

intervening earlier wouldn't change why we were there in the first place.

check out this list of countries that in the last hundred or so years that have dealt with american interventions (it ain't short)....and i don't think the majority of them improved the lives of the citizens living in them.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Well some of those are arguable, as much as I'm against the Iraq and Afghan Wars it's pretty hard to say whether or not they've been negative involvements. Iraq might even be seen as positive in 10 years, even the left has been slowly changing its rhetoric on it. This could end up being a really complex and drawn out argument if we debate the merits of our intervention in Iran in 1953 but I'll say positive interventions in the long run: Panama (obviously not humanitarian but still) maybe Afghanistan, maybe Grenada and just to be a devil's advocate Iraq. Then there's the Gulf War and Korean War, both of which could be considered interventions. I'd consider them positive. The rest of them have generally been disastrous.

Intervening earlier would make the removal of Qaddaffii much easier and prevent the deaths of a few thousand rebels. It would be a good strategic move.

Anyways I'm becoming more skeptical about the no-fly zone, especially as I read that France didn't assist the rebels as they were trying to retake Adjibaya (sp?). That doesn't bode well, I'm sure they knew about the offensive yet they did nothing to flatten loyalist defenses. Maybe there were human shields but still it's starting to look more like a blunder. What really creeps me out is that hardly anyone in my age group knows about what happened to Yugoslavia. How can such a recent military intervention just be forgotten like that?

[open mind]

Well some of those are arguable, as much as I'm against the Iraq and Afghan Wars it's pretty hard to say whether or not they've been negative involvements. Iraq might even be seen as positive in 10 years, even the left has been slowly changing its rhetoric on it. This could end up being a really complex and drawn out argument if we debate the merits of our intervention in Iran in 1953 but I'll say positive interventions in the long run: Panama (obviously not humanitarian but still) maybe Afghanistan, maybe Grenada and just to be a devil's advocate Iraq. Then there's the Gulf War and Korean War, both of which could be considered interventions. I'd consider them positive. The rest of them have generally been disastrous.

Intervening earlier would make the removal of Qaddaffii much easier and prevent the deaths of a few thousand rebels. It would be a good strategic move.

Anyways I'm becoming more skeptical about the no-fly zone, especially as I read that France didn't assist the rebels as they were trying to retake Adjibaya (sp?). That doesn't bode well, I'm sure they knew about the offensive yet they did nothing to flatten loyalist defenses. Maybe there were human shields but still it's starting to look more like a blunder. What really creeps me out is that hardly anyone in my age group knows about what happened to Yugoslavia. How can such a recent military intervention just be forgotten like that?

the human toll in iraq and afghanistan has been unquestionably bad and always will be, but i can't argue that the politics surrounding the conflicts may eventually change radically in the u.s.. intervening in iran and putting the shah in power brought a huge backlash that resulted in the current regime gaining power so i see it as a definite blunder......regardless of what might be considered a few positive outcomes of intervention i'd still say the vast majority didn't help, or made things worse.

sure it would have been good strategy, but we'd still be there for the wrong and unjustifiable reasons.

americans have a short memory. i tend to think that's by design but even if it's not we've still got a very short memory.