This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Libya
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I really don't care about the monetary cost if the alternative is simply sitting back and watching it happen. That's my stance, and I will always apply that stance.
Have you thought about the people who are driving the tanks and manning the radar installations that you're advocating bombing? Do you think that they *want* to kill their countrymen?
They're just out there doing a job, working for their livelihood.
There are two sides to every tale.
Post by
Skreeran
I really don't care about the monetary cost if the alternative is simply sitting back and watching it happen. That's my stance, and I will always apply that stance.
Have you thought about the people who are driving the tanks and manning the radar installations that you're advocating bombing? Do you think that they *want* to kill their countrymen?
They're just out there doing a job, working for their livelihood.
There are two sides to every tale.There's a difference between going out and killing enemy fighters and bombing civilians.
If you are fighting for Gaddafi, you are an accessory to the murders he is committing, and I'm afraid I won't feel guilt if you die, even if you are doing it just to put food on your family's table.
A bank robber who shoots innocent people to feed his family shouldn't go unpunished either.
Post by
Squishalot
If you are fighting for Gaddafi, you are an accessory to the murders he is committing, and I'm afraid I won't feel guilt if you die, even if you are doing it just to put food on your family's table.
Bull@#$%. I feel more sorry for Gaddafi's fighters, who are likely to suffer retribution if they choose not to fight, than for the rebels, who didn't have to start this conflict in the first instance, and who don't need to continue it.
If I hold a gun to your family and friends' heads and tell you to fight for me or lose your family, what would you do?
Post by
Skreeran
If you are fighting for Gaddafi, you are an accessory to the murders he is committing, and I'm afraid I won't feel guilt if you die, even if you are doing it just to put food on your family's table.
Bull@#$%. I feel more sorry for Gaddafi's fighters, who are likely to suffer retribution if they choose not to fight, than for the rebels, who didn't have to start this conflict in the first instance, and who don't need to continue it.
If I hold a gun to your family and friends' heads and tell you to fight for me or lose your family, what would you do?That's a hard question you ask, but my judgment would have to be the same. Whether you wish to be taking part in the murders or not, you still are, and if I have to kill you to stop it, I will. I will seek a less drastic way of stopping you first, but when it comes down to it, I cannot stand by and let murders continued.
Now, that applies only to the murder of
civilians
. I'm not talking about soldiers in wartime.
Post by
Squishalot
You didn't answer the question.
Here's another one then. Can you honestly say that you won't feel guilt if someone dies, by your hands, while they were trying to save their family?
Post by
Skreeran
You didn't answer the question.
Here's another one then. Can you honestly say that you won't feel guilt if someone dies, by your hands, while they were trying to save their family?I would feel sad that things turned out the way the did, and I would wish that they hadn't happened that way, but I would not feel guilt as if I felt I made the wrong decision. I'd be able to sleep at night, so to speak, knowing that I did all I could.
If you have a better solution (that isn't "Stay out of it and let the other people die so you can feel good about yourself."), I'd love to hear it.
Post by
Squishalot
If you have a better solution (that isn't "Stay out of it and let the other people die so you can feel good about yourself."), I'd love to hear it.
Easy. I'd try to convince the rebels to stand down and hide to avoid persecution post-Gaddafi 'victory'. This will end the immediate bloodshed.
Then, I would charge Gaddafi with appropriate crimes against humanity for his actions (since naturally, if there are sufficient grounds for bombing the crap out of Gaddafi at the moment, there will be once the resistance stops too). If he submits, all is good. If he chooses to resist, then we're right where we are now (i.e. Gaddafi vs Rest of the World), except that his forces won't be attacking civilians, because they're not the target, it's the UN forces that are the primary target.
Any concerns with that plan?
Post by
Skreeran
If you have a better solution (that isn't "Stay out of it and let the other people die so you can feel good about yourself."), I'd love to hear it.
Easy. I'd try to convince the rebels to stand down and hide to avoid persecution post-Gaddafi 'victory'. This will end the immediate bloodshed.
Then, I would charge Gaddafi with appropriate crimes against humanity for his actions (since naturally, if there are sufficient grounds for bombing the crap out of Gaddafi at the moment, there will be once the resistance stops too). If he submits, all is good. If he chooses to resist, then we're right where we are now (i.e. Gaddafi vs Rest of the World), except that his forces won't be attacking civilians, because they're not the target, it's the UN forces that are the primary target.
Any concerns with that plan?Not a bad plan, except that Gaddafi would very likely just start killing/imprisoning anyone who had anything to do with the revolution. It could work, but it just seems too slow and too dependent on factors out of our control.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-war, but I believe in doing what is necessary to stop innocent bloodshed.
Post by
Squishalot
Not a bad plan, except that Gaddafi would very likely just start killing/imprisoning anyone who had anything to do with the revolution. It could work, but it just seems too slow and too dependent on factors out of our control.
a) It's not dependent on that many factors - it's just a different UN response to the attacks. If you mean that it's dependent on the rebel leaders standing down, then it's on their heads if they choose not to take the less bloody option.
b) Gaddafi won't be killing / imprisoning anyone if the UN is knocking down his doorstep. He'll be busy sorting out international relations.
c) No matter what happens, even if Gaddafi continues to persecute civilians, at least it'll be targeted hits on continuing rebel groups, rather than a broad-based assault on primarily-rebel cities since the majority of the population won't be making themselves targets by shooting at Gaddafi troops. Less bloodshed full stop, on both sides.
At the moment, the main reason why there are civilian deaths is because the rebels are inciting the population to join in the revolt, and because they're making their stands in highly populated areas.
Worst case scenario is that we're still where we are, but Gaddafi attacking smaller rebel groups further away from civilian populations. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, you can try explaining your plan to the UN if you like, but we don't always get the best case scenario, and I am satisfied with the intervention we chose to instate, when the alternative was sitting and watching it happen like we almost did.
Even though we have different ideas about how best to deal with Gaddafi's crimes, we at least agree that he is in the wrong, and that he should not go unpunished, I think. And if that's the case, we both stand relatively together as opposed to the isolationists who would rather just ignore the issue until it stops coming up in the news.
Post by
gnomerdon
Skreeran, grab a gun and go help the people in Libya if you feel so strongly about helping them. I'll stay back and give you my silent support... After further thinking, since there hasn't been a draft since Vietnam, the people who are being shipped to fight the wars in the middle east are happy to be there making a difference. /salute. Therefore, I take back my previous statement about not sending American soldiers into the ground to defend civilians...
I can already see how it's gonna go down already. First obama will have a no fly zone and protect civilians, then in a few weeks, he will hold a press conference telling us it's time to send ground forces to take out the leader. Just wait... this is just the beginning. And when this does happen, he will lose the upcoming election because he went against his word.
I am hoping that this is as far America goes with the situation with Libya.
The poll results do not lie.
Funden
You're saying that human life is king, yes? Well, if we don't intervene, more civilians are going to be gunned down during protests. And the rebels will be crushed, and very definitely slaughtered.
So you say finance the rebels... so they can kill more people! Which also costs money!
But you say that AMERICANS and ENLIGH people will be killed. Does that mean they are worth more than the Libyans?
I'd like to say that I love America and our citizens. I am not Caucasian(irrelevant) and I was born on American soil. I will do what I can to minimize American casualties in ANY situation and I will treat every citizen like how I would treat my own children, so that they may feel comfortable and safe in their very own home under the united states constitution, in which people in the past BLED for. Old politicians declare war / initiate action, the young ones go in the fight it.
First off, let's assume that we are forced into Libya no matter what. I'd rather finance the rebels so they can defend themselves and lead their own attacks. Believe me, people are GOING to die no matter what. It will cost money to finance the rebels so they can "kill more people" but at least we are not risking American lives to engage in a civil war that they even shouldn't even be in! As Americans, it is our goal to protect our American soldiers. When this whole war is over and Gadhafi is out of power, it is up to THE PEOPLE to determine which direction they want to go, NOT US. Look at the stability in Iraq. Sometimes, democracy doesn't work in Middle Eastern cultures. The crippling doctrine (Quran and THE BIBLE) will spur more hate and more people will die. If you were the leader of your very own country, when a civil war breaks out on the other side of the world, I wonder how much you will actually contribute. NOTHING. How come we gave Libya immediate action and are still ignoring the hideous things going on in Burma after so many years? There has to be another reason why we are stepping our foot into Libya. All we can do is speculate.
American lives are more important than Libyans. You have to agree with me, America does...... Look at the polls on the war on Iraq. We have a diluted culture which nationalizes American lives over the many many thousands of Iraqis who died. Even to this day, I still do not have a exact number on how many iraqi's / afghanistanis were killed. I'm pretty sure it was over 4,000 but what do we care? They were muslims and we are mostly "christians...." they died because of God's will.....
Can muslims really create a constitutional republic like the United States of America? If they can't, there will be more bloodshed. Time will tell.
You may criticize me for not supporting the past wars and Libya, but believe me, I am. I am forced to because uncle sam takes a huge portion of my paycheck monthly.
Being the "selfish, bad leader that I am," I would give Libya the minimum aid that I can offer under the guidelines of the NATO, and put my attention back on withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and finding ways to reduce the deficit that we are under. Or maybe I'll give Kobe Bryant a call to rape another women. Or coincidentally, force Michael Jackson to rise from the dead and molest another cancer dying boy so that America will focus on more important things like molesting cases, murder, and other crimes. What Charlie Sheen does next is more important than Libya btw.
Post by
557539
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
220646
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
... as opposed to the isolationists who would rather just ignore the issue until it stops coming up in the news.
I don't want to ignore anything. Obama ignored congress when committing U.S assets to this exercise. Even Obama himself said that the president doesn't have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize military action against a foreign nation unless we've been attacked or there is an imminent threat to our country. There should have been some sort of debate.I wasn't referring to you specifically.
And what exactly do you mean by "unilaterally?"
Do you mean that Obama should have let Congress come to a decision first? Perhaps, but how long would that have taken? We might be looking at total destruction of entire cities before they ever made a decision.
And if you're using "unilaterally" to mean "The US going in alone without the approval of other countries," like some people do, don't. That's not exactly what that words means, and the US is not going in alone.
Post by
557539
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
I voted undecided.
Here are two articles, one
serious
and one
silly
, that explain why I'm undecided.
Post by
Skreeran
And what exactly do you mean by "unilaterally?"
That Obama acted alone in committing United States assets to this 'operation'.Well, yes, it is questionable whether he has the authority to do that. As Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, he has the power to control the military, but the question is if he has the power to engage another country without the assent of Congress.
I don't really hold it against him, though, because he was attempting to respond to a crisis in a prompt matter without any more waiting. The UN passed Security Council Resolution 1973, gave the go-ahead to implement a no-fly zone, and rather than waiting who knows how long, he went ahead with the plans to begin implementing it, apparently to save lives before it was too late.
At least, that was my impression. It's true it would have been nicer if Congress could have given its assent, and there's question over whether or not the President has the power to do that, but I really think that he did it with the best intentions, and I am glad that something was done sooner rather than later.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Within days of the coup, however, Hasan publicly renounced all rights to the throne, stated his support for the new regime, and called on the people to accept it without violence.
That's why I recognise his authority as legitimate.
His action to obtain power may not have been within the laws of the country, and the authorities of the time would have been well within their rights to take action against him. They didn't / couldn't, and thus, the rest is history.
That's what we call surrendering. Hasan, being out of the Country realized that a counter movie against his Generals would result in mass casualties and probably tear the country apart. It doesn't change the fact that an illegal, possibly violent (yes, I know it was bloodless, but they had know way of knowing it would be such a clean take-over at the start), display of power. That's how most authority is born.
You're living in a country that rebelled against British rule, and you're asking me that? Is the American Government legitimate?
Yes. Because force is a perfectly legitimate way of overthrowing the government. Gaddafi did it, and now the rebels are doing it. Their legitimacy derives simply from winning.
The problem is when you exceed what is legitimately part of a rebellion or war.
Post by
Squishalot
Because force is a perfectly legitimate way of overthrowing the government. Gaddafi did it, and now the rebels are doing it. Their legitimacy derives simply from winning.
And there you have your answer to your original question. His government is legitimate; thus, his use of force against protestors, in the absence of any constitutional guidance, is legitimate.
His attacks on cities with rockets and air strikes may be a problem. But the only point that you questioned in my statement, his authority to coerce a protest group to disperse using force, is a legitimate power that he has to wield, granted to him by his previous actions and subsequently sanctioned by the former authority. Just because the US army is not empowered by the US Constitution to take action against its civilians doesn't mean that the Libyan armed forces isn't either.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And there you have your answer to your original question. His government is legitimate; thus, his use of force against protestors, in the absence of any constitutional guidance, is legitimate.
His attacks on cities with rockets and air strikes may be a problem. But the only point that you questioned in my statement, his authority to coerce a protest group to disperse using force, is a legitimate power that he has to wield, granted to him by his previous actions and subsequently sanctioned by the former authority. Just because the US army is not empowered by the US Constitution to take action against its civilians doesn't mean that the Libyan armed forces isn't either.
Did you read my post?
So then the question is no longer a legal question
(as both sides are equal in that regard)
but a moral one
. And I think most ethicists would agree that killing people for protesting is immoral.
There is a reason the West uses rubber bullets. Because using lethal force on protesters is inhumane.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.