BBC has reports that Qaddafi has ordered the police to burn the dead bodies so they cannot be identified. We, of course, should support this however, because as Kap brings up, this might be lead to something worse. Than that. Like Iran having ships go through.

I could post some pretty graphic, terrible images of what Qaddafi is paying mercenaries to do to their own citizens. But we must keep US/Israeli interests at the front of any discussion.

 

Leaving aside international diplomatic relations, I'm not sure what the US should be doing here. The protesters deserve solidarity and support, but should the US (or other countries) use military force to stop the atrocities being carried out against the Libyan people? If they're bombing their own people with planes, should those planes be brought down?

The protesters deserve solidarity and support, but should the US (or other countries) use military force to stop the atrocities being carried out against the Libyan people? If they're bombing their own people with planes, should those planes be brought down?

 

Yes

Yes

It would sure as hell be a better use of military resources than having invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, that decision was already made, and engaging in a third Middle Eastern military conflict may not be prudent right now.

 

Yes

 

So, when a guy like Saddam Hussein does these types of things it's bad to intervene, but here it's ok? I don't get it.

So, when a guy like Saddam Hussein does these types of things it's bad to intervene, but here it's ok? I don't get it.

I didn't say we needed to send 500K troops in there to wage a war. I'd recommend shooting down their planes during this skirmish as we have evidence that their planes are shooting civilians.

 

It'll be a good use for our multi-million dollar war planes that collect dust for the most part.

Edited February 22, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

So, when a guy like Saddam Hussein does these types of things it's bad to intervene, but here it's ok? I don't get it.

Actually, we WERE doing that with Hussein, with the no-fly zone. And by all accounts, it was having its intended effect. It wasn't solving Iraq's problems, but it was preventing what it aimed to prevent.

 

We can't address every dictatorial problem in the world, but we can be selective and smart to get the biggest bang for our buck. And right now, it sure would be nice if we had the military and political capital left to do a relatively small thing to help innocent people. It would probably pay some nice dividends.

 

Doesn't matter though, because we DID go into Iraw, and we ARE still in Afghanistan, and we ALREADY will be seen as trying to take over yet another country, even if we are not. So its no longer a smart option.

 

Actually, we WERE doing that with Hussein, with the no-fly zone. And by all accounts, it was having its intended effect. It wasn't solving Iraq's problems, but it was preventing what it aimed to prevent.

 

We can't address every dictatorial problem in the world, but we can be selective and smart to get the biggest bang for our buck. And right now, it sure would be nice if we had the military and political capital left to do a relatively small thing to help innocent people. It would probably pay some nice dividends.

 

Doesn't matter though, because we DID go into Iraw, and we ARE still in Afghanistan, and we ALREADY will be seen as trying to take over yet another country, even if we are not. So its no longer a smart option.

 

A no fly-zone and a direct military operation (or many operations) are a little different. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what the line is for intervention. If it's helping innocent people, there's a ton we could do around the world.

 

A no fly-zone and a direct military operation (or many operations) are a little different. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what the line is for intervention. If it's helping innocent people, there's a ton we could do around the world.

Like I said, we can't do it all... but I am saying that this type of situation, where a small action could work well, is now much more difficult because of the idiotic decision to invade Iraq.

 

A no fly-zone and a direct military operation (or many operations) are a little different. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what the line is for intervention. If it's helping innocent people, there's a ton we could do around the world.

 

Yeah, that's the core of my question. Leaving aside all Real Politik, where is that line? When should foreign governments intervene on the behalf of citizens?

Yeah, that's the core of my question. Leaving aside all Real Politik, where is that line? When should foreign governments intervene on the behalf of citizens?

 

In cases of genocide or mass murder.

In cases of genocide or mass murder.

Unfortunately, we can't even get that far, because that list of countries is already 20+. Needs to be more narrow and specific than that. Hate to say it, but part of the equation needs to be when and where it buys the US the most capital in return.

 

Pretty sad that Libya is on the UN Human Rights Council.

Unfortunately, we can't even get that far, because that list of countries is already 20+. Needs to be more narrow and specific than that. Hate to say it, but part of the equation needs to be when and where it buys the US the most capital in return.

 

I prefer we let countries liberate themselves. I think far to often we are on the side of the person getting overthrown.

I prefer we let countries liberate themselves. I think far to often we are on the side of the person getting overthrown.

 

Thankfully the French didn't think this way 250 years ago.

 

I'm with NSS, if there's a US gain then we should act, hopefully in concert with other nations.

Thankfully the French didn't think this way 250 years ago.

 

I'm with NSS, if there's a US gain then we should act, hopefully in concert with other nations.

 

"Hmm, what's in it for me to stop a country from bombing its own citizens?"

 

 

That's a pretty awful way to look at it. And it's also why the US supports plenty of terrible governments. And I don't think NSS would agree with that position.

 

 

http://revolution2.moonfruit.com/

 

Updated continuous confirmed/unconfirmed reports from Libya.

"Hmm, what's in it for me to stop a country from bombing its own citizens?"

 

 

That's a pretty awful way to look at it. And it's also why the US supports plenty of terrible governments. And I don't think NSS would agree with that position.

 

Well, it's reality. We do not have the resources to be the world's police, so we have to pick and choose. s***ty choice, but again, that's reality.

I could post some pretty graphic, terrible images of what Qaddafi is paying mercenaries to do to their own citizens. But we must keep US/Israeli interests at the front of any discussion.

 

Leaving aside international diplomatic relations, I'm not sure what the US should be doing here. The protesters deserve solidarity and support, but should the US (or other countries) use military force to stop the atrocities being carried out against the Libyan people? If they're bombing their own people with planes, should those planes be brought down?

 

The question would be, "are you willing to pay $5 for a gallon of gas", which is exactly why we won't. The american public would have a s***fit.

The question would be, "are you willing to pay $5 for a gallon of gas"

 

Yes. I wish it were higher so more people would avoid driving and infrastructure were designed for more walking, biking and public transit.

Edited February 22, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

Well, it's reality. We do not have the resources to be the world's police, so we have to pick and choose. s***ty choice, but again, that's reality.

 

That's why I phrased the question to remove those considerations and make it a moral choice--when and where should a foreign government intervene, ignoring real-world international politics and military resources.

 

Again, I could post some pretty horrific images to illustrate the narcissism I see in the "what's in it for the US?" idea of analyzing everything.

That's why I phrased the question to remove those considerations and make it a moral choice--when and where should a foreign government intervene, ignoring real-world international politics and military resources.

 

Again, I could post some pretty horrific images to illustrate the narcissism I see in the "what's in it for the US?" idea of analyzing everything.

 

Well if it's purely a moral choice and we have infinite resources and no political ramifications, then sure, we should be involved wherever there are human injustices.

Yes. I wish it were higher so more people would avoid driving and infrastructure were designed for more walking, biking and public transit.

 

Kind of ignores the scale of the country don't you think? Not everyone lives in a metro area, a fact a lot of liberals seem to ignore.

Let's not turn a thread about revolutions in the Middle East and a particularly violent one in Libya into an argument about US gas and infrastructure.

Kind of ignores the scale of the country don't you think? Not everyone lives in a metro area, a fact a lot of liberals seem to ignore.

 

I'm not ignoring that. I just think it's unwise to continue the sprawl. It's smarter to build up than out.