|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 18, 2011 13:53:41 GMT -5
I agree the colonel is a bad guy, he makes war on his own people, etc., but, just wondering what people would have thought if England had undertaken to lecture Lincoln for making war on approximately one half of his own people because they wanted to secede - not to overthrow him, just leave in peace. What if England had imposed the 19th-century equivalent of a no-fly zone: a naval blockade?
Qaddafi's forces, which from his perspective are defending the nation against rebels, are on the doorstep of Benghazi, apparently with the intent of destroying it. Anybody remember what happened to Atlanta, Ga. in 1864?
There's something about this action on the part of the UN and the Obama administration that is troubling.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 18, 2011 13:58:27 GMT -5
Good thoughts there, Chesapeake. I'm troubled too. To me it's a safer bet not to go than get involved in....what?
We haven't learned to mind our own business yet?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 18, 2011 13:59:19 GMT -5
I've also been a bit puzzled by this. I wish the rebels luck, but it's hard to see why intervention is any more justified here than in other civil wars. As a practical matter, I suspect it's being done because, if I understand correctly, the Arab League gave its blessing to intervention, thus eliminating one of the biggest reasons not to intervene.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 18, 2011 13:59:59 GMT -5
There's something about this action on the part of the UN and the Obama administration that is troubling. I am not educated enough to have a decent historical perspective on this. Simpleton that I am-at least in this arena-I'm just troubled that we are getting involved in yet another unstable sandbox. The first rule of holes is: when in one, stop digging. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 18, 2011 14:00:17 GMT -5
Troubling how? I think it'd be more troubling to see them sit on their hands until it was all over.
Your comparison to our civil war is a stretch, I think.
The last I heard this morning, Qaddafi called a cease fire and is backing off. I don't know if it's us that he's afraid of, since we haven't said that we're going to do anything, but he's afraid of somebody.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 18, 2011 14:01:39 GMT -5
Chuck Norris?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 18, 2011 14:02:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on Mar 18, 2011 14:07:57 GMT -5
That's what I thought when I saw the "Not so fast, Mr. Walker" thread title.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 18, 2011 14:32:38 GMT -5
Haven't we already killed enough kids for the political ambitions of those in DC?
|
|
|
Post by j on Mar 18, 2011 14:35:31 GMT -5
Give me a fucking break. A country has the authority to blunt its own citizens into submission? You can shoot people on the streets, shoot people in hospitals, shoot people because they're asking for change?
Qaddafi is a lunatic and a dangerous one. He's not THAT dangerous to countries other than his own, and that makes this "intervention" (so far, nothing more than stern language and a lot of muscle flexing) possible. You have a broad international community backing this up—China abstaining and not vetoing equals the US voting in favor about 100x.
I understand that most Americans have nothing but contempt for the UN and the international community, but THIS is exactly what it's all about. We have a chance of stopping the Libyan situation from turning turn into another Cambodia, Rwanda, or Kosovo—pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 18, 2011 15:08:25 GMT -5
"I understand that most Americans have nothing but contempt for the UN and the international community, but THIS is exactly what it's all about."
I'm emphatically not one of those Americans. If this hadn't been handled through the UN, and were instead a unilateral US action, I'd be adamantly opposed. Although it isn't entirely clear yet, it appears that France and Britain may take the leading role. I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 18, 2011 15:54:24 GMT -5
It wasn't my intention at all to bash the UN. I'm just wondering where we draw the line between what's legal and what seems right.
Maybe we do need to intervene when it appears that human rights are being violated. As I recall, that's what Bush did in the case of Saddam Hussein, and he got quite a bit of grief for it, I suspect by many of those who are now clamoring for military action against Qaddafi.
I'm just looking down the road at the next time people get repressed by their leadership and want us to take up arms in their behalf. I believe Obama touched on the legality question in his statement that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy as a leader. But who decides that? There are a lot of dangerous lunatics around. Who do we take on next, and what is the tripwire? Another popular uprising?
I don't pretend to know the answer - I'm just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by j on Mar 18, 2011 15:58:33 GMT -5
Really? Kurdistan didn't become an issue until after the invasion. I recall the invasion on Iraq to be centered on smoked guns and WMDs—talks of human rights were spun by the PR machine only after the whole "mission accomplished" thing.
And, biggest difference—the UN wasn't even ALLOWED to express a similar opinion on the Iraqi situation. The inspections were hurried along/hushed up, and the air strikes were begun unilaterally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 16:36:26 GMT -5
Chesapeake: England DID come very close to what you are suggesting, and established some trade with the south, and even threatened to run any US blockade.
But, it's not remotely analogous to Iraq. Saddam was a beast, but had not pissed off every other country in the world. Iraq was relatively stable, prosperous, and had a solid middle class, employment, universities, hospitals, etc. What it comes down to is this: Will ANYBODY object if we whack this guy? Saddam had a lot more international support. The Colonel is pretty much alone. But, if the UK or France were to kind of lamely invent fake evidence of WMDs, or something, to justify this, they'd soon lose all international support.
The way I look at it: Good luck UK, France, whoever. We'll hope for the best.... But if you get your silly ass hung up in a muddled, violent occupation, we can kind of say "told you so: done that/been there". If they don't get hung up: maybe we can learn something. The US needs to stay WAY the hell away from this, and I suspect the rest of the world will probably appreciate that, considering our record for intervention in the region.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 18, 2011 17:15:14 GMT -5
I'm seriously conflicted on this whole thing. I'll believe the U.N. is actually going to do something about it when I see British and France planes bombing Qadaffi and the U.S. staying away. Meanwhile, I think we're being set up for another quagmire where the U.N. will sit on the sidelines and bitch at us about casualties.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 18, 2011 17:46:41 GMT -5
I don't know the answer just askin'
Why Britain and France but not Italy? Seems I read just today that a Italian island south of Sicily is being taken over by the refugees. And Italy is the closest European nation.
|
|
|
Post by j on Mar 18, 2011 17:52:42 GMT -5
Italy has been very close to the Qaddafi regime, in an effort to repair the strained post-quasi-colonial relationship. From what I understand, the current government is trying to re-align itself with the rest of Europe and not look like the most hypocritical kid on the block, although Berlusconi just stuck his foot in his mouth last week with some inane remark.
To give you an idea, Berlusconi met Qaddafi a few months ago at an Arab League event and kissed the Colonel's hand as a sign of respect. Enough said...
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 18, 2011 17:56:37 GMT -5
Good to get it from you, J. Interesting, politics as usual no matter where you are.
I thought after I posted that that you might think I was taking a shot at you and I wasn't. I only take shots at Canadians. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 18, 2011 18:07:56 GMT -5
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with the UN spanking this guy. I have no problem with them rallying a broad base of support and consensus about spanking this guy; I have no problem with them organizing the military action. I likewise have no problem with team America coming out with strong verbal support and pats on the back for the UN. I have real misgivings about us doing any of the heavy lifting, though. Let's let some other g9 nation take the point, and get the check, on this one.
We can leave the tip.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 18, 2011 18:26:23 GMT -5
Track oil prices vs. Qaddafi's military attacks on his people. When his people are kicking his ass the price of oil falls. When he turns around and kicks their ass, the price goes up - fast. Bringing some stability to that region will make things a lot better for the whole world. Libya is a large oil supplier and Qaddafi doesn't mind attacking oil installations. the rest of the world, China included, decided enough is enough.
|
|