Libya Uprising thread

[Cacmypants]

 

'nuff said

 

I'm watching that right now and I don't get your point at all. The guy wants to sound as if he knows what he's talking about but he is just clutching at straws which are not relevant to the situation.

 

1. Countries traded arms with Libya: Yes they did, as they do with almost all countries in the world. How though does this mean they shouldn't intervene?

2. Countries met with Gaddafi and traded economically: Again, we live in a globalised society where world leaders have to meet. Libya has a large oil supply which the rest of the world needs. While the country was at peace, the rest of the world had no choice but to trade with Libya

3. Leaders of countries leading the attacks are falling in polls: Firstly why the hell does that even matter? Secondly are you sure? I know Cameron wasn't overly popular in the UK a short while ago but I actually think his popularity has been slowly rising for a few months since the budget cuts.

 

 

I don't think 'nuff was said. The video was horrendously biased and, proven by the amount of view by all that guys videos, he doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't taken seriously.

 

I just have a lot of respect of Stefan Molyneux, sorry that you don't, he's easily one of the wisest people on the web, and I wasn't replying to anyone, just sharing. Btw, it's just ignorant to conclude someone's integrity by the amount of exposure they receive.

[Will H]

 

'nuff said

 

I'm watching that right now and I don't get your point at all. The guy wants to sound as if he knows what he's talking about but he is just clutching at straws which are not relevant to the situation.

 

1. Countries traded arms with Libya: Yes they did, as they do with almost all countries in the world. How though does this mean they shouldn't intervene?

2. Countries met with Gaddafi and traded economically: Again, we live in a globalised society where world leaders have to meet. Libya has a large oil supply which the rest of the world needs. While the country was at peace, the rest of the world had no choice but to trade with Libya

3. Leaders of countries leading the attacks are falling in polls: Firstly why the hell does that even matter? Secondly are you sure? I know Cameron wasn't overly popular in the UK a short while ago but I actually think his popularity has been slowly rising for a few months since the budget cuts.

 

 

I don't think 'nuff was said. The video was horrendously biased and, proven by the amount of view by all that guys videos, he doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't taken seriously.

 

I just have a lot of respect of Stefan Molyneux, sorry that you don't, he's easily one of the wisest people on the web, and I wasn't replying to anyone, just sharing. Btw, it's just ignorant to conclude someone's integrity by the amount of exposure they receive.

 

The man is trying to pretend that he know what he's talking about in multiple areas where he really doesn't. I certainly don't like people who misuse Orwell's 1984 as a way to put cynicism beyond reason. Last I heard, Cameron's actually increasing in support like Danq said, given that he based his election plan on sorting out the Budget, which just happened a few days ago, and more importantly the Libyan intervention gained cross party support (and that's really rare), unlike what this man is implying.

Everybody in the UK government knows and accepts that this is an operation to stop genocide, not a way to impose regime change. Regime change will be a byproduct of making Gaddafi toothless, but it is not the aim.

 

There is no war against Libya, the US missiles are being sent to destroy ground to air defences and structures, not people. They are not indiscriminate, as this man is implying. Gaddafi is placing his supporters nearby ground to air defences because he knows that the Coalition won't bomb civilians. For God's sake even Gaddafi knows this!

 

 

I for one am prepared to pay my taxes if it means stopping mass murder of peaceful demonstrators. The man who made that video is pretty much one of the archetypes of people I dislike. Cranking the skepticism up to a point near to 'Descartes' is the lazy way of constructing any kind of philosophical basis, and that's a sign of someone trying to get the largest amount of people listening for the least effort. I have zero respect for that.

[Range_This11]

 

'nuff said

 

I'm watching that right now and I don't get your point at all. The guy wants to sound as if he knows what he's talking about but he is just clutching at straws which are not relevant to the situation.

 

1. Countries traded arms with Libya: Yes they did, as they do with almost all countries in the world. How though does this mean they shouldn't intervene?

2. Countries met with Gaddafi and traded economically: Again, we live in a globalised society where world leaders have to meet. Libya has a large oil supply which the rest of the world needs. While the country was at peace, the rest of the world had no choice but to trade with Libya

3. Leaders of countries leading the attacks are falling in polls: Firstly why the hell does that even matter? Secondly are you sure? I know Cameron wasn't overly popular in the UK a short while ago but I actually think his popularity has been slowly rising for a few months since the budget cuts.

 

 

I don't think 'nuff was said. The video was horrendously biased and, proven by the amount of view by all that guys videos, he doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't taken seriously.

 

I just have a lot of respect of Stefan Molyneux, sorry that you don't, he's easily one of the wisest people on the web, and I wasn't replying to anyone, just sharing. Btw, it's just ignorant to conclude someone's integrity by the amount of exposure they receive.

That guy purports that he knows what he's talking about because all of academia is lies and deceit. LIES AND DECEIT, MAN! His video provides NO sources for any of the claims he makes, but of course that's because all the sources he could use are LIES AND DECEIT.

 

Come on dude, be realistic, there is no way any of these conspiracies are anywhere near true. Sure, some of his "facts" may be based on real events and real people, but the conclusions he draws from them are so far from the truth it's laughable.

[i_trollz_u]

Ypu said it yourself at the end Freakyhair, it has not been one sided in Gaza and is a very complicated situation on it's own. It is a very messy situation, politically and socially which is why it is very hard for other countries to get involved in the same way. This is the reason topics like this on the internet turn out so hectic because people often do not realise that situations cannot be compared with different countries. They may seem the same superficially but they are two totally different situations.

 

Think about how bad the situation in Iraq has turned out in many people's view. If the West intervened in Gaza and Israel, the situation could be ten times worse with Israel having a very large army that is very well trained. It would not be viable for outside intervention unless Israel went for example, on a killing rampage, which unfortunately is what Gaddafi has done in Libya. However, in Libya, it is viable for the West to get involved as there is not much chance of them being dragged into a long and costly war.

 

You have to remember that right here, it was not the US that wanted to be involved the most, it was France which called for the UN resolution. However, it was also the Arab League which wanted the No fly zone, not the West.

 

Governments aren't picking and choosing who they want in charge of countries, but it is their right to pick and choose if theydo not get involved in a war or if they do.

 

What about Sudan, Rwanda, and the numerous other genocides or human rights abuses that the US has been criticized for not intervening in? I don't think you can say those were not pointless slaughter of civilians that represents hate crimes and ethic cleansing which are even worse atrocities than the crimes Gaddafi is committing.

 

Waiting for other countries to ask for intervention really just proves that the US has become more clever in deception and demonstrating of political tact.

 

It certainly does make it seem like the US is subjectively picking it's fights. The US seems to be showing a disturbing trend to intervening in particular countries that have oil resources (even though libya is like 2% of the worlds oil). Doesn't seem to have much to do with human rights, as much as corporate interests. The justifications for "humanitarian" intervention has always been a bit sinister, and despite any positive effects this intervention may result in, the US needs to rethink it's methodology in foreign affairs.

[Ginger_Warrior]

importantly the Libyan intervention gained cross party support (and that's really rare), unlike what this man is implying.

Everybody in the UK government knows and accepts that this is an operation to stop genocide, not a way to impose regime change.

To an extent there's cross party support, in that mad dictators should be stopped from killing their own people (no [cabbage] Sherlock?). You really shouldn't attempt to use that as a way of avoiding the initial embarrassment Cameron found himself in.

 

Stepping in front of TV cameras saying the man you sold arms to only a few months ago should step down, seeking international support for a no-fly zone saying you have US support when you actually didn't at the time, and then saying the whole deal isn't about regime change whilst your foreign minister says 'Gaddafi must go'. I'm struggling to see any consistent foreign policy at all there, except "stop mass genocide" which is a trite and, frankly, obvious statement.

 

Say what you like about the Iraq war. I was one of the two million who marched against it, but at least it was consistent with US and British policy of interventionism at the time.

 

As it is, the Saudi authorities also butchered their own people last week. No one on either side of this country's political spectrum batted an eye lid. I cannot for the life of me fathom why.

[Cacmypants]

Whatever, why don't you guys actually go research someone before you start spluttering stereotypical assumptions.

[jasignhagj]

I believe this is a misuse of the word genocide. Gaddafi isn't killing off a whole race of people, just his opponents.

[Will H]

importantly the Libyan intervention gained cross party support (and that's really rare), unlike what this man is implying.

Everybody in the UK government knows and accepts that this is an operation to stop genocide, not a way to impose regime change.

To an extent there's cross party support, in that mad dictators should be stopped from killing their own people (no [cabbage] Sherlock?). You really shouldn't attempt to use that as a way of avoiding the initial embarrassment Cameron found himself in.

 

Stepping in front of TV cameras saying the man you sold arms to only a few months ago should step down, seeking international support for a no-fly zone saying you have US support when you actually didn't at the time, and then saying the whole deal isn't about regime change whilst your foreign minister says 'Gaddafi must go'. I'm struggling to see any consistent foreign policy at all there, except "stop mass genocide" which is a trite and, frankly, obvious statement.

 

Say what you like about the Iraq war. I was one of the two million who marched against it, but at least it was consistent with US and British policy of interventionism at the time.

 

As it is, the Saudi authorities also butchered their own people last week. No one on either side of this country's political spectrum batted an eye lid. I cannot for the life of me fathom why.

 

I'm not going to pretend that selling arms to Libya isn't embarrassing, although I think this is more of a wider international issue. Pretty much every government, past and present, of pretty much every country, traded/trades arms with dictatorships. To stop trading arms with these regimes on principle was pointless because they'd only buy the arms from a different country, causing us to lose revenue for zero benefit. I get the feeling that this vicious circle wasn't broken because of the oil in Libya. If I was Gaddafi, I'd threaten to cut off all oil exports if there was any kind of concerted effort to stop any further arms deals with Libya. Stalemate.

 

 

We (as in non-Libyan countries) collectively do not have a right to overthrow Gaddafi ourselves, that lies with the Libyan people. That doesn't mean that we can't openly wish that Gaddafi wasn't in power. That's not inconsistent, that's just knowing where your moral jurisdiction lies.

 

Most of international law is trite and obvious, that's how it ends up being international law, but somehow that doesn't seem to stop Gaddafi from breaching it. You're right, that's all the foreign policy is here. If we start putting in more foreign policy clauses that isn't under the UN resolution, the alliance is likely to fall apart.

 

As for Cameron assuming US support they actually gave it, that's news to me. I can't seem to find anything that mentions that, do you have a source?

 

About the Saudi authorities, I share your concern. Why is nothing being done?

[Danqazmlp]

The reason the UN doesn't usually get involved is that there is no way of winning. Unfortunately, in this world, countries are not going to get involved in situations they cannot see themselves winning. In Libya, the rebels although overpowered do have a chance of victory, which is why other countries are willing to get involved. If they are to get involved in a situation where they have a large chance of winning, the political leaders will usually end up losing their power in the country and generally being beaten to death by that countries media. Also, places like Iraq and Afghanistan are not the norm. For a country to get involved in another countries affairs like Saudi Arabia, they need UN backing. They also probably need backing of the countries nearby the one they wish to get involved in. In Libya, they had this, but in other areas they don't.

 

Unfortunately politics, the UN and international law are a very complicated matter. It means countries can get involved in one situation but not another. However it doesn't mean that they are actively ignoring one situation but going straight for another, or that the US (I don't like how everybody wants to focus on them at the moment as they are barely involved here now) is doing what it wants.

[Ginger_Warrior]

An easier question is this: Would we be involved if there was no oil, and if British interests in the Middle East over the years hadn't created this mess in the first place?

 

Dictators kill their own people everyday. It's an unfortunate, but very tangible political reality of the world we live in. I don't see anyone saying we should get involved in those countries though.

 

If this conflict is an attempt to prove that British interests can extend beyond those countries which provide us with oil, and that our efforts are an altruistic attempt at improving the quality of life and self-expression of oppressed citizens around the world, it's the wrong conflict to pick on.

 

I support the idea of a no-fly zone, but is this seriously the precedent we are going to set? When the next Arab country erupts into political violence, and starts asking the BBC for help, do we unconditionally help them too? Say the rebels do win, and the resulting government proves unpopular and ineffective, resulting in further political unrest. Do we remain involved there as well?

[Danqazmlp]

Yes we would as it was called for by both Arab countries and the French before the Americans and British. As much as I have heard, the only thing about the oil was the price change before any of this happened.

 

I think many people are forgetting the chain of events leading to this uprising, it wasn't America or Britain who initiated anything.

[Will H]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and declares a policy of 'no mercy' on peaceful demonstrators, and we have the capability to stop the killing, why not? So many lives have already been saved by the intervention.

 

As for oil, I doubt anybody would trade arms with Gaddafi if Libya didn't have oil. He probably wouldn't be in power right now either. It was his only real bargaining chip.

[Dark_Yeng]

Meh... I don't really pay attention to these Libya news stuff. I'm currently into the Mexican Drug War than the other news (on the Net/TV).

 

 

~Stay safe, our troops :)

[i_trollz_u]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

[Will H]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

 

 

... you're being sarcastic, right?

[Giordano]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

 

 

... you're being sarcastic, right?

No; it makes sense and most likely the truth anyhow. "Do I have something to gain in this situation: yes / no "

[Ginger_Warrior]

The Sudanese authorities killed their own people in what the Bush administration described as 'genocide' for 22 years in a civil war, and British intervention was minimal at best throughout that period, during Thatcher, Major and Blair parliaments.

 

There's a presumed axiom in this debate that we should stop mad, evil dictators whereever they appear. Two questions:

1) Why should we spend our money solving other people's problems when people die unnecessarily on our own doorsteps?

2) Why haven't we followed this logic through to countries whose economic output has no interest to us?

 

"'Coz it makes us feel better about ourselves" isn't a foreign policy.

[Will H]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

 

 

... you're being sarcastic, right?

No; it makes sense and most likely the truth anyhow. "Do I have something to gain in this situation: yes / no "

 

To tackle a situation of because of it's complete amorality by using an completely amoral method is hypocrisy. Or is hypocrisy acceptable too? Shall we just not bother then?

[Giordano]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

 

 

... you're being sarcastic, right?

No; it makes sense and most likely the truth anyhow. "Do I have something to gain in this situation: yes / no "

 

To tackle a situation of because of it's complete amorality by using an completely amoral method is hypocrisy. Or is hypocrisy acceptable too? Shall we just not bother then?

Acceptable by who?

[Will H]

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and our oil is under their land, why not?

 

fixed.

 

Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

 

 

... you're being sarcastic, right?

No; it makes sense and most likely the truth anyhow. "Do I have something to gain in this situation: yes / no "

 

To tackle a situation of because of it's complete amorality by using an completely amoral method is hypocrisy. Or is hypocrisy acceptable too? Shall we just not bother then?

Acceptable by who?

 

Anyone in the world. I don't think it's acceptable, what about you?

[Giordano]

No, of course not. But there is a difference in the weight of opinions between the common man and a powerful man. Governments are formed to keep a vast network of people in physical and financial well-being.

 

Trollz U was just stating a fact, at least I hope it wasn't his opinion as well, a fact that patriots refuse to believe and revolutionaries blab on about it. Either you accept reality and look after your own physical and well-being, or pursue to change it and take action.

[Will H]

Alright, I was just getting really worried that people were starting to give up morality itself or something, which I really wanted to kill from the start. Sorry if I was a bit passive-aggressive there.

 

As far as politics goes, there's a balance to be had. Democratic governments get away with being complicit in a lot of quite immoral and self-centred things (read '[insert country here]'s interests'), but whenever they are, they live in constant fear of being found out and being judged according to how well their opinions correlate with that of the common man. If they don't, they lose their jobs.

 

You can look at that in a half-full glass or half-empty glass way, but either way immoral things come to the spotlight and need to be stopped by the elected government as an expression of the morality of the common man of that country. Otherwise, they lose their jobs. This is such an occasion.

[The Dark Lord]

Just bumping this thread since very significant events concerning the rebellion in Libya have been/are taking place recently.

 

What do you guys think about the situation with the rebels assuming control of Tripoli and setting up an interim government and the latest controversy over the leaked documents about the CIA and MI6 working with Gaddafi right up until the uprising?

[Will H]

A worthy bump. The NTC has consistently impressed me as capable and rational as a transitional government can be. Here's a copy of a draft of the constitution that is currently being drawn up, the NTC will only ratify it if two-thirds of the population agree to it:

 

http://www.al-bab.co...ional-Stage.pdf

 

Make no mistake, Libya isn't going to be like "western" countries like the US or the UK, and neither should it be, but it does look democratic. I like it, it does its best to reduce corruption, but otherwise in many aspects it's very liberal. What do you guys think of it?

 

As for the CIA and MI6 having worked with Gaddafi, it really doesn't surprise me. Nobody liked him, but the man had oil and the capacity to directly influence the world economies. We can all easily be horrified and ridicule them, but really, any rational person would at least talk with Doctor Evil if he could significantly damage their country with a moon-laser. Lesser of two evils and whatnot.

[Dizzle229]

Best of luck to the rebels, they seem to know what they're doing for the time being.

 

Two major things have to happen now: The capture/killing of Gadaffi and his remaining family, and the surrendering of Sirte.