|
Priapist posted:I do think, however, that would help other governments de-legitimize their own protesters by pointing to Western intervention in Libya. Stop a massacre and possibly stunt the progress of other democratic uprisings, or watch a tyrant commit a bloodbath. lovely choice, it seems to me. This is my feeling as well.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Priapist posted:I do think, however, that would help other governments de-legitimize their own protesters by pointing to Western intervention in Libya. Stop a massacre and possibly stunt the progress of other democratic uprisings, or watch a tyrant commit a bloodbath. lovely choice, it seems to me. It's worth asking whether showing dictators their actions have consequences and that they are being watched, might have the opposite effect and instead give protesters greater confidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Mr Plow posted:It's worth asking whether showing dictators their actions have consequences and that they are being watched, might have the opposite effect and instead give protesters greater confidence. I don't think so. This is the protestors battle to win for themselves. A no-fly zone might be appropriate, as are sanctions; but direct military action has nothing good come of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:
I saw a torso, a head and arms and virtually nothing else.  There is literally no punishment harsh enough for Ghaddaffi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:16
|
|
WARNING: REALLY loving GROSS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
|
Petey posted:I don't think so. This is the protestors battle to win for themselves. A no-fly zone might be appropriate, as are sanctions; but direct military action has nothing good come of it. I think you're pretty much dead-on, as lovely as the situation is. However, I wonder if regional powers would be better-received? Libya is flanked by Egypt and Tunisia to the west and east respectively. Could they be effective?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Im usually pretty non-interventionist, but this stuff is hard to read.quote:A friend of mine just posted this on his Facebook I get not intervening in a country where the majority arent asking for help, but should there be a line somewhere? Gaddafi seems crazy enough to literally just kill everyone...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
What I'm concerned with is that even if the Libyan regular army decides to join the protestors side, the Colonel would still have his elite all-virgin bodyguard unit to protect him. They're extremely well trained and might turn any attempts at Gaddafi into a bloodshed. WHY IS AMERICAN MEDIA NOT DISCUSSING THIS???
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
For intervention one option would be to get the Egyptians to intervene. They are the regional power in North Africa and it would avoid the stigma of Western troops. Also has the added benefit of being closer than most NATO assets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:What I'm concerned with is that even if the Libyan regular army decides to join the protestors side, the Colonel would still have his elite all-virgin bodyguard unit to protect him. They're extremely well trained and might turn any attempts at Gaddafi into a bloodshed. WHY IS AMERICAN MEDIA NOT DISCUSSING THIS???
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Enjoying the spectacle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
The American Medical Association has a bit of ethics policy based around the concept of paternalism based on a utilitarian approach. It's not by any means 'objective' (there's no such thing as objective morality), but I find it useful as a universally applied rule. It is considered ethical for a doctor to employ paternalism (acting on a patient's behalf without their consent) if and only if the following three criteria are met: 1) Great harm will come if paternalism is not employed. You can't use paternalism for a 'greater good', only to avoid great harm. 2) The patient is irreversibly ignorant (comatose, clinically insane, mentally handicapped, a child, etc. 3) It must be reasonable to assume that, at a later time, if no longer 'irreversibly ignorant', the patient would ratify your decision to intervene. I find this 'rule of thumb' has many applications, from deciding when it's 'acceptable' to break a promise to international intervention. Substitute 'sovereignty' for 'autonomy', and regard the population as a whole (with their government as an expression of the will of the people) to be the 'person', with analogies to insanity etc. I believe intervention here can be justified on ethical grounds (and it could not have been in Tunisia or Egypt). Whether a response that produces a positive outcome (that outweigh negative consequences) is possible is another question entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:
Jesus loving wept. Youtube just took it down though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
While BBC World Service currently sounds like an autotuned song, the guy on the phone is really passionate and I think he's breaking down. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
BBC has a tripoli Libyan on the line. The connection is awful, but the bits you can hear sound atrocious. "Thousands... people in the street" as he cries. "Help" This is so horrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
I would really approve of my tax dollars being used to enforce a no fly zone over Libya right now. We could have it fully in place by this time tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
What are the chances of anyone actually intervening at this point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
Even Libya's own representatives at the UN are turning on Gaddafiquote:Signs that the Gaddafi regime is being abandoned by key officials are growing. They include Libya's entire delegation at the United Nations. The Associated Press news agency reported:
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Sivias posted:BBC has a tripoli Libyan on the line. The connection is awful, but the bits you can hear sound atrocious. Any translations of what the BBC man said? He interspersed speaking Aranbic, sounds like he was trying to calm the caller down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Kane posted:What are the chances of anyone actually intervening at this point? We could probably cook up a medium-strong UNSC condemnation if you give us a week or two and put in a good word with China
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Libya has WMD right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Libya has WMD right? No, they gave them up to stop being international pariahs
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
The two pilots who landed in Malta are colonels and are currently spilling their guts about the activities of the army, and that's being passed onto the EU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The two pilots who landed in Malta are colonels and are currently spilling their guts about the activities of the army, and that's being passed onto the EU. I hope something comes of this. And soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Libya has WMD right? They gave them up decades ago, and it was just chemical weapons, no nukes or biologicals. If he still had them, he'd be recreating Halabja in Benghazi and Tripoli right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
These are apparently pictures of the mercenaries entering the city
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Slave posted:No, they gave them up to stop being international pariahs I don't think you GET IT, MISTER. Let's try again. "Libya HAS WMDs, RIGHT?!?!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
GnatKingCoal posted:I don't think you GET IT, MISTER. Oh poo poo sorry I think I just saw some, lets get'em boys
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
quote:Despite others suggesting earlier that William Hague was off the mark in claiming that Muammar Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela, Libyan state television is now reporting that this is actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
How has Israel reacted to the Libyan situation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
This would be a good opportunity for the US to fix its standing in the world, if we could just go in and wipe out the regime and then leave (and Let the UN oversee elections) However, I doubt that will happen because people here would hate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
A phone call posted on the AJE blog claims that the soldiers are just shooting anyone they see, and specifically targetting doctors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
GnatKingCoal posted:I don't think you GET IT, MISTER. See it took that long for this to be posted. I need to include more emoticons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Is there anyone I can email on the national (Canadian) or international level to do something about this? Hell it doesn't even need to be a body that I'm a part of, I just want to do something - anything - that can help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
I think I can hear a little kvetching from the reporter on the BBC right now, talking about how the world is silent to the calls for help from Libyans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:This would be a good opportunity for the US to fix its standing in the world, if we could just go in and wipe out the regime and then leave (and Let the UN oversee elections) Really?! You think the world (including China, Russia, and other ME nations) would view our intervention positively? Irrespective of how quickly we left. Not a chance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
^^ Yeah, they really stopped us there in Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cuba... ^^^Darth123123 posted:See it took that long for this to be posted. I need to include more emoticons. Pretty soon this "peace train" poo poo is gonna be OVER, son. Time for you to get on the Winning Team and Fight The Good Fight. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
I'm just ranting here, but we spend billions on the latest and greatest military toys, and now we have a veritable carte blanche of international opinion to use them to save lives, and our president is standing around holding his dick. We could have air superiority over Libya within hours, it may do fuckall for stuff that's happening on the ground, but they wouldn't be able to drop bombs on their own people anymore. EDIT: Darth123123 posted:Really?! You think the world (including China, Russia, and other ME nations) would view our intervention positively? Irrespective of how quickly we left. Not a chance. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html The Orgasm Sanction fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Really?! You think the world (including China, Russia, and other ME nations) would view our intervention positively? Irrespective of how quickly we left. Not a chance. I was quite young during the First Gulf War but I do not recall any significant backlash against the US for the liberation of Kuwait. Certainly not on the scale of GWB's subsequent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan for certain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Intel5 posted:I'm just ranting here, but we spend billions on the latest and greatest military toys, and now we have a veritable carte blanche of international opinion to use them to save lives, and our president is standing around holding his dick. We could have air superiority over Libya within hours, it may do fuckall for stuff that's happening on the ground, but they wouldn't be able to drop bombs on their own people anymore. "Muamar, don't take this the wrong way. We've been sorta friends kinda for a while now, and we're watching the way you're responding to this and... well, we felt it necessary to intervene. We're afraid you're gonna really hurt someone. We're afraid you'll hurt YOURSELF..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Really?! You think the world (including China, Russia, and other ME nations) would view our intervention positively? Irrespective of how quickly we left. Not a chance. Gaddafi is commiting genocide, though. This would be more akin to the NATO intervention in Bosnia, than some gently caress up like Iraq or Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 19:53
|
|
