U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[southsider2k5]

Humanitarians R Us

 

To that I'll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn't humanitarianism, it's opportunism.

 

by Digby

 

Too bad the same standards aren't held up for social entitlement programs, which in my humble opinion, are a lot less important than humanitarian issues.

[StrangeSox]

Too bad the same standards aren't held up for social entitlement programs, which in my humble opinion, are a lot less important than humanitarian issues.

i hate to break this to you, but enough income to scrape by and medical care for the poor, elderly and disabled is a humanitarian issue.

[southsider2k5]

i hate to break this to you, but enough income to scrape by and medical care for the poor, elderly and disabled is a humanitarian issue.

 

Not nearly as much as being shot at.

[BigSqwert]

Emphasis mine...

 

If in Libya, why not also in Ivory Coast?

Mar 23, 2011 10:59 EDT

 

When Ivory Coast’s election last year left the country with two men claiming to be president and a flood of warnings of the threat of civil war, the world’s diplomatic and media interest was unprecedented.

 

After a turbulent four months, which have seen two North African revolutions, a tsunami and near nuclear meltdown in Japan, and Libya’s ongoing war, how that has changed. The West African nation’s crisis is grizzly but also in a slow-burn mode and hardly getting a look in with all the drama elsewhere.

 

The international recognition of Alassane Ouattara as victor and sanctions slapped on his rival, incumbent Laurent Gbagbo, who refuses to step down, are still in place. But so is Gbagbo, and Ouattara remains holed up in a hotel, protected by a ring of United Nations peacekeepers. Threats, made by West Africa’s ECOWAS bloc, to oust him have rung hollow.

 

Scores of people have since been killed, hundreds of thousands of have fled their homes amid heavy fighting and rights groups are warning crimes against humanity may have already taken place. Both sides have been accused of abuses but the most serious charges – including the killing of women protestors calling for Gbagbo to leave – have been levelled at Gbagbo. One was even been caught on camera,

, but Gbagbo’s camp has denied responsibility.

 

The country’s economy has disintegrated while the IMF warns the regional one is in peril. The long-flagged war has, arguably, already begun.

 

Yet, it appears there are only so many crises the world can handle at any one time and, right now, television cameras and diplomats are looking elsewhere. Nigeria’s foreign minister has accused the international community of double standards by imposing the no-fly zone in Libya while doing little in Ivory Coast. Liberia, still recovering from its own conflict, is struggling to raise funds it needs to deal with the refugees it is now taking in. Ouattara has scolded his U.N. backers for not doing enough to protect civilians.

 

With a crisis like Libya taking place, is it only natural that Ivory Coast should drop down the agenda?

 

Civilians in Ivory Coast, where there is a U.N. peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate, have also been promised protection. Yet, so far, no robust action has been taken, even though the U.N. has accused pro-Gbagbo forces of using heavy weapons against civilians in Abidjan.

What is the difference between Ivory Coast and Libya? Is it just the scale of the abuses or are there other factors at play? Some analysts and this blogger say Libya’s oil makes it more important than Ivory Coast, the world’s top cocoa grower.

 

The African Union had only just finally ironed out internal divisions over supporting Ouattara when it then had to set up another crisis team to deal with Libya. It is wary about too robust an intervention in either case and was still speaking out against military intervention in Libya even after a U.N. resolution had authorised it, and the Western forces had fired their first shots. Can the AU play a meaningful role in resolving Ivory Coast’s crisis. If so, what?

 

via

 

[StrangeSox]

id recommend yesterdays fresh air. great interview on the subject.

[Jenksismyhero]

Does the Ivory Coast provide the world with a much demanded commodity? If not I don't think it's very comparable.

 

I've stayed away from this thread because I noticed it got a little ridiculous. IMO comparing wars or reasons for those wars is dumb. Iraq and Libya are two completely different situations brought about by different acts, in different time periods, for different reasons (also, the revisionist history being retold was pretty hilarious).

 

I see no reason why we're assisting (leading) the fight in Libya, regardless of the actions going on there. It's a waste of military resources. It's more money/time/manpower being spent on a part of the world that needs to be left alone. I don't care that the Arab countries (i.e., the rich ruling Arabs that benefit from their ties to the west, but not necessarily the citizens of those countries who probably continue to see us as the aggressor bringing the holy war against them) are supposedly for it.

 

I'm all about us getting involved in situations in order to protect our assets/friends. Here we have none of that. I say again, wtf can't we let someone else play the worlds police if that's what the majority of the UN wants? We dabble too much in the world and it nearly always comes back to bite us in the ass. And shockingly, the coalition is already starting to fall apart, meaning we either pick up and leave (won't happen) or we decide to continue taking action on our own (which will).

 

Edit: forgot to add the link about the coalition.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

Well Jenks I was arguing that this isn't a humanitarian issue as others have claimed. It may be humanitarian in their eyes but it's probably #64 on the list of reasons why the US is involved.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Too bad he wasn't elected instead of Obama.

 

 

For the record, 83% of Americans think U.S. foreign policy should focus on partnering with other countries “according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole”. A mere 16% think we should use our power solely or even primarily to protect “U.S. interests”.

 

One has to wonder if McCain and Lieberman were thinking about “what is best for the world as a whole” when they were patting Gadhafi on the back.

 

via

Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Cknolls]

Does the Ivory Coast provide the world with a much demanded commodity? If not I don't think it's very comparable.

 

I've stayed away from this thread because I noticed it got a little ridiculous. IMO comparing wars or reasons for those wars is dumb. Iraq and Libya are two completely different situations brought about by different acts, in different time periods, for different reasons (also, the revisionist history being retold was pretty hilarious).

 

I see no reason why we're assisting (leading) the fight in Libya, regardless of the actions going on there. It's a waste of military resources. It's more money/time/manpower being spent on a part of the world that needs to be left alone. I don't care that the Arab countries (i.e., the rich ruling Arabs that benefit from their ties to the west, but not necessarily the citizens of those countries who probably continue to see us as the aggressor bringing the holy war against them) are supposedly for it.

 

I'm all about us getting involved in situations in order to protect our assets/friends. Here we have none of that. I say again, wtf can't we let someone else play the worlds police if that's what the majority of the UN wants? We dabble too much in the world and it nearly always comes back to bite us in the ass. And shockingly, the coalition is already starting to fall apart, meaning we either pick up and leave (won't happen) or we decide to continue taking action on our own (which will).

 

Edit: forgot to add the link about the coalition.

 

 

Number one coca bean producer in the world by a large margin.

[Jenksismyhero]

Too bad he wasn't elected instead of Obama.

 

 

 

 

via

 

He used the word "interesting" to describe him, what's wrong with that?

[Jenksismyhero]

Number one coca bean producer in the world by a large margin.

 

Not really on par with oil.

[Jenksismyhero]

Reading this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...k-missiles.html amazes me.

 

The submarines are stealthy and can loiter offshore unseen before going to depth to fire the Tomahawks.

 

The Block Four variant of the missile can travel more than 850 miles, can be retargeted in flight and can loiter above a target for more than two hours.

 

Craziness. I'm watching The Pacific and Ken Burns: The War right now, which makes all this modern technology seem that much more impressive.

[BigSqwert]

He used the word "interesting" to describe him, what's wrong with that?

What's he doing "pallin' around with terrorists?"

[Soxbadger]

And you really don't think that "wwii isolationists" is exactly the same thing? H. Christ man.

 

Actually its not the same thing at all. Many people who were isolationists had absolutely no idea what was occurring in Germany. In fact the US govt was very weary of showing pictures of the Holocaust because they believed that the pictures would be considered unbelievable and actually erode support for the war.

 

I dont see where anyone has equated someone to a Nazi supporter, Im not sure that anyone has taken the position that they want to promote genocide. Merely standing on the sidelines and allowing murder to happen, does not make you a murderer, it just means you didnt want to get involved.

 

So no its not the same thing, words have meaning. Isolationist does not equal Nazi supporter, but if you are going to promote Isolationism, you better be able to answer real questions about when if ever you would intervene. That is an entirely legitimate question.

 

As for the Ivory Coast argument, its just wrong. The UN is intervening in the Ivory Coast, you are arguing against intervention in Libya, because you want MORE intervention in Ivory Coast.

 

Thats a very peculiar point of view.

 

As for the heavy weaponry part, that was merely about the ridiculous argument of why are we acting 1 way in Libya and another in Ivory Coast. In Libya you can destroy heavy armor with airplanes and not be directly involved on the ground. In the Ivory Coast it is the opposite.

 

So to argue that there should be no bombings in Libya because there have been none in the Ivory Coast, is bizarre at best.

 

I'm all about us getting involved in situations in order to protect our assets/friends. Here we have none of that. I say again, wtf can't we let someone else play the worlds police if that's what the majority of the UN wants? We dabble too much in the world and it nearly always comes back to bite us in the ass. And shockingly, the coalition is already starting to fall apart, meaning we either pick up and leave (won't happen) or we decide to continue taking action on our own (which will).

 

Legitimate argument and one that doesnt distort the facts.

 

Im of the opposite belief. If we get involved in crises that do not immediately give us or our allies gain, it provides us legitimacy (imo). It shows that we are a country that not only cares about ourselves, but cares about the rest of the world.

 

Not every American agrees with that, and I respect the difference of opinion.

 

The people who infuriate me are the ones who say that they want to help, but make up nonsensical excuses about why we cant help due to other wars or that we havent helped everyone equally.

 

Nothing is ever equal, we do the best that we can, and quite frankly there are plenty of people who would prefer we do nothing.

[Jenksismyhero]

What's he doing "pallin' around with terrorists?"

 

He's a head of state. Rumsfeld was pallin' around with Saddam years ago too. If it was a meeting 2 weeks ago after he started killing his own people, then I could see a reason to point at McCain. Otherwise this is just another "OMG the GOP are so dumb" blog post.

[BigSqwert]

Legitimate argument and one that doesnt distort the facts.

 

Im of the opposite belief. If we get involved in crises that do not immediately give us or our allies gain, it provides us legitimacy (imo). It shows that we are a country that not only cares about ourselves, but cares about the rest of the world.

 

Not every American agrees with that, and I respect the difference of opinion.

 

The people who infuriate me are the ones who say that they want to help, but make up nonsensical excuses about why we cant help due to other wars or that we havent helped everyone equally.

 

Nothing is ever equal, we do the best that we can, and quite frankly there are plenty of people who would prefer we do nothing.

 

Why aren't you so gung ho about US involvement in a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Ivory Coast?

 

And there's a difference in UN intervention and US intervention. The US proactively set forth to assist in Libya. I see nothing of the sort in the Ivory Coast.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

Who cares if McCain met Gaddafi. For all we know McCain was trying to convince Gaddafi to step down. Its not like McCain said "Gaddafi, great guy with great ideas, I wish Obama was more like him."

 

Gaddafi is a bad cruel guy, he always has been, but plenty of leaders in history have met with far worse people. Im pretty sure FDR met Stalin a few times.

[Soxbadger]

Why aren't you so gung ho about US involvement in a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Ivory Coast?

 

And there's a difference in UN intervention and US intervention. The US proactively set forth to assist in Libya. I see nothing of the sort in the Ivory Coast.

 

If the UN asks for more US military assets, I would be gung ho about it. But so far I have not seen 1 article that suggests the UN has asked for more US support in the Ivory Coast, and that we have refused to give it.

 

Im not sure why the UN has asked the US to be more involved in Libya than Ivory Coast, my guess is that Gaddafi had far superior military capabilities and felt that because of that the US needed to be more involved.

 

But the argument still doesnt make sense. On one hand you want the US to be more active in Ivory Coast, even though the UN has not requested it, and on the other you want the US to be less active in Libya, when the UN requests it.

 

How does that make any sense?

 

This isnt unilateral US action.

[BigSqwert]

But the argument still doesnt make sense. On one hand you want the US to be more active in Ivory Coast, even though the UN has not requested it, and on the other you want the US to be less active in Libya, when the UN requests it.

 

The "humanitarian" label is hogwash. I'm not advocating the US intervene in either scenario. I'm just pointing out glaring inconsistencies by the US.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

Its not inconsistencies of the US, its inconsistencies of the UN.

 

I hate to break it to you, but the US was not the one pushing for action in Libya, it was the French and English. The US army is merely a tool of the UN when it comes to UN enforcement.

 

All of these articles that attack the US, should be attacking the UN.

 

(edit)

 

And if you really arent advocating more intervention in Ivory Coast, you are just using a cynical hollow argument.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Its not inconsistencies of the US, its inconsistencies of the UN.

 

I hate to break it to you, but the US was not the one pushing for action in Libya, it was the French and English. The US army is merely a tool of the UN when it comes to UN enforcement.

 

All of these articles that attack the US, should be attacking the UN.

False! You love breaking it to me.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

Its not inconsistencies of the US, its inconsistencies of the UN.

 

I hate to break it to you, but the US was not the one pushing for action in Libya, it was the French and English. The US army is merely a tool of the UN when it comes to UN enforcement.

 

All of these articles that attack the US, should be attacking the UN.

The U.N. of course didn't choose to act one bit until the U.S. decided to act. The U.S. army is a tool of the U.N., but the U.N. is a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

 

And both France and England had serious domestic issues to consider, as I've pointed out previously.

[Soxbadger]

The U.N. of course didn't choose to act one bit until the U.S. decided to act. The U.S. army is a tool of the U.N., but the U.N. is a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

 

And so far no one has provided a shred of evidence that the UN wants to act differently in the Ivory Coast, but that the US is preventing it. (For the sake of argument Im just going to assume that the UN would not have acted without US approval.)

 

So b**** about the UN all you want (I personally think thats a legitimate argument), but the US cant be responsible for making every tough decision. So far not once has the UN said they wanted more assistance in the Ivory Coast from the US, so to say that it wants it, is entirely speculation unsupported by fact.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Emphasis mine...

 

 

 

via

 

We should help the Ivory Coast. The UN has failed there completely, as has the Obama administration.

[BigSqwert]

And so far no one has provided a shred of evidence that the UN wants to act differently in the Ivory Coast, but that the US is preventing it. (For the sake of argument Im just going to assume that the UN would not have acted without US approval.)

 

So b**** about the UN all you want (I personally think thats a legitimate argument), but the US cant be responsible for making every tough decision. So far not once has the UN said they wanted more assistance in the Ivory Coast from the US, so to say that it wants it, is entirely speculation unsupported by fact.

That's the problem. Neither the UN or the US seem to really care about what's going on in the Ivory Coast. I had people quoted as asking for more help in my previous posts yet where is that help they are requesting?