U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[BigSqwert]

Not according to Ross. According to Ross, 100k was the worst case scenario.

 

The only thing I saw misleading was the article and the headline.

 

The quote is clear:

 

 

 

The article read that sentence as if it said: AT LEAST 100k.

 

Im sorry the only person trying to mislead people is the article you quoted. When you read the quote, there is absolutely no way to come to the conclusion that 100lk was anything more than a worst case scenario estimate.

 

An incredibly unlikely worst case scenario based on the comparisons of Kosovo and Iraq. Like I said, the only reason that ridiculously high number was even mentioned was to mislead people and garner more sympathy for the cause.

 

This wasn't a case of ethnic cleansing or mass genocide such as Kosovo. The current leader was trying to be ousted and he struck back. How they got to 100K is laughable.

Edited March 25, 2011 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Time for Team America to go do some air raids in Syria.

 

Syria Troops Open Fire On Protesters

 

EDIT: Up to 100,000 Syrians might be killed unless we help them now.

Edited March 25, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

No the reason that number was mentioned is that is how you talk about bad news. I mean he could have been more clear and said:

 

the real or imminent possibility that as few as 0 and up to a 100,000 people could be massacred,

 

That is what the quote really says, the word UP TO implies a end limit, meaning that their expectation was any number between 0-100.

 

I just assume that Ross didnt consider that people would completely twist his quote to something it never meant.

 

(Edit)

 

I dont see why comparisons to Kosovo or Iraq are at all comparable. Itd be like saying that 100,000 is a low number compared to Pol Pot.

 

Ill tell you what I do know, Ross had a million times more information than the guy who wrote the NYT article. Not to mention the NYT article coudlnt even understand his quote.

 

Id trust Ross more than Id trust a guy who purposefully misled readers.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

You cant say Im wrong when I never mentioned anything about transparency. The end goal of the sanctions were to stop the production of WMD and facilitate the destruction of WMD. The only reason for the need for transparency was that the international community didnt trust him. The mere fact he wasnt transparent, does not mean that the sanctions didnt work.

 

?? That's why you were wrong. You forgot to include that portion of his requirements. The goal wasn't just to make sure he didn't make any MORE weapons it was to ensure that he didn't have ANY weapons of that caliber, then or now.

 

As to the second bolded part, you don't remember the part where he kicked out the inspectors? Despite being required to let them in whenever they wanted? I'd say that was a pretty blatant violation and since the UN didn't care to enforce the violation, the sanction didn't work.

[Balta1701]

As to the second bolded part, you don't remember the part where he kicked out the inspectors? Despite being required to let them in whenever they wanted? I'd say that was a pretty blatant violation and since the UN didn't care to enforce the violation, the sanction didn't work.

This actually never happened. I assume you mean 1998, correct?

 

The inspectors left of their own accord, because the U.S. was about to launch a bombing campaign.

 

It was 100% accurate that Saddam was refusing them access to some of his palaces in 1998, and that was in violation of resolutions requiring unfettered access for the inspectors. Because of that, the U.S. launched Operation Rommel Desert Fox in 1998. At no point did Iraq kick out the inspectors.

 

Really though, in hindsight it's remarkable how, despite the occasional annoyance from Saddam's people, the UNSCOM team in the 1990's was able to quantitatively account for and destroy >95% of Saddam's banned weapons. The remainder...that's why they switched units when selling that war...they went to "Liters" instead of "Iraq has not been able to account for 2.3% of its anthrax" because, in a country that spent 2 decades at war and being bombed, that's a rounding error.

[Balta1701]

Oh, Goodie.

NATO has planned for a three-month no-fly operation over Libya, but could make it longer or shorter if necessary, an alliance official said on Friday of a mission that is due to start early next week.

[StrangeSox]

?? That's why you were wrong. You forgot to include that portion of his requirements. The goal wasn't just to make sure he didn't make any MORE weapons it was to ensure that he didn't have ANY weapons of that caliber, then or now.

 

As to the second bolded part, you don't remember the part where he kicked out the inspectors? Despite being required to let them in whenever they wanted? I'd say that was a pretty blatant violation and since the UN didn't care to enforce the violation, the sanction didn't work.

 

Except that he didn't have weapons and didn't post a threat.

[StrangeSox]

If you're going to argue that it's ok when resolutions are broken because no one got hurt then yeah, resolutions are pretty worthless. What's the point if that person can violate the resolution and expect no retribution? What's the point if the attitude is, well, breaking the rules didn't really hurt anyone, so we'll just let it pass, this time and the seventeenth time.

 

That's not my argument. You're also still making the really bad argument that "if relatively minor violations of one particular resolution aren't enough to justify a stupid war and occupation, then all resultions are bad."

[Balta1701]

The U.S. is considering providing arms to Libyan rebels who are trying to topple Col. Moammar Gadhafi, but hasn't yet made a final decision, a senior American diplomat said Friday.

 

"The full gamut of potential assistance that we might offer, both on the non-lethal and the lethal side, is a subject of discussion within the U.S. government," Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Tripoli, told reporters in Washington.

 

Mr. Cretz said, however, that the administration has made "no final decisions

....

 

Of course...when we start sending them weapons, they're going to need advisors to train them in the appropriate use of those weapons.

[kapkomet]

This whole thing is a humongeous debacle. I'll just leave it at that.

[Soxbadger]

Im on the other side completely.

 

I believe that history will not be a kind judge to those who opposed the UN intervention.

 

Thankfully we will have a record of people's positions, but my instincts tell me that the success of Libya is going to be extremely important to the Democratic movements of the Middle East and beyond.

 

I assume that you consider Iraq a debacle as well.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[kapkomet]

Im on the other side completely.

 

I believe that history will not be a kind judge to those who opposed the UN intervention.

 

Thankfully we will have a record of people's positions, but my instincts tell me that the success of Libya is going to be extremely important to the Democratic movements of the Middle East and beyond.

 

I assume that you consider Iraq a debacle as well, wouldnt want to accuse you of being hypocritical just because of your political ideology. Im sure youre consistent.

 

 

You eliminate all "moral equivalancies" (which you cannot do, by the way - you're only doing that to shield yourself from any real idealogy invloved in this action)... to support "democratic movements" in the Middle East? Geesh.

 

I still have not heard from our jackass president, who ordered our troops into another theatre, a real reason why we're doing this. Humanitarian? Right? Oil? Right? Kill MQ? Right? Leave him in power but bomb the piss out of him just because? Right? So what ARE we really doing? Just as long as we can remove moral equivalancies from past actions, this is all good. Right?

[Balta1701]

You eliminate all "moral equivalancies" (which you cannot do, by the way - you're only doing that to shield yourself from any real idealogy invloved in this action)... to support "democratic movements" in the Middle East? Geesh.

 

I still have not heard from our jackass president, who ordered our troops into another theatre, a real reason why we're doing this. Humanitarian? Right? Oil? Right? Kill MQ? Right? Leave him in power but bomb the piss out of him just because? Right? So what ARE we really doing? Just as long as we can remove moral equivalancies from past actions, this is all good. Right?

F***, I don't like this. Either I have to disagree with everything I've said in this thread or I have to agree with Kap.

[Soxbadger]

I still have not heard from our jackass president, who ordered our troops into another theatre, a real reason why we're doing this. Humanitarian? Right? Oil? Right? Kill MQ? Right? Leave him in power but bomb the piss out of him just because? Right? So what ARE we really doing? Just as long as we can remove moral equivalancies from past actions, this is all good. Right?

 

Because if you have followed this at all you know what we are doing in Libya.

 

We are part of the UN.

 

The people of Libya requested UN action.

 

The UN approved the action.

 

The US as part of the UN has given support.

 

The reason I am so in favor of our helping in Libya, is because this isnt about the US. This is about helping people in their time of need, hopefully showing the rest of the world, that we will not sit silently if they reach for the stars and dream of democracy and peace.

 

That the world hears them, that they are not alone.

 

If that isnt enough for you, if you must have some concrete reason why the US will gain before you believe the US will help, than you will never support this action. But if you are like some, and you believe that the good of the action in and of itself is enough to help, then you will support the action.

 

Its like helping a stranger. You may never gain anything, but there are still some people who choose to do it.

 

Why?

 

Because some people want to help others, not for any particular gain, but just because helping some one else is often the right thing to do.

 

As for removing moral equivalences, I do it because they are a cheap argument technique that serves no real purpose. It presupposes that all action is equivalent and that you therefore must be bound by previous action or non-action.

 

To show the ridiculousness of moral equivalences you just have to use it in argument. For example, the US had Japanese internment camps in World War II, therefore the US can not stop other countries from having internment camps. Or, the US killing of the Native American's was the equivalent of another foreign country killing off an indigenous people and therefore the US cant stop them.

 

Those are ridiculous and unsupportable positions, yet if I was to use moral equivalences I could legitimately make those arguments. So its not about moral equivalences in this argument, its about them in every argument. They are only useful for creating context, they are terrible for trying to make real arguments.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

No...there's a key difference between the moral equivalence examples/Godwin's law violations and the moral equivalence here.

 

In the examples you give, you're judging future/current actions based on past actions.

 

In comparing it to Syria, Bahrain, Cote d'Ivoire, etc., the actual argument is that the U.S. is justifying a war based on humanitarian concerns in the case where other, much more dire humanitarian situations exist at the exact same time. It's choosing which one to go after.

[kapkomet]

By the way, I will actually answer the Iraq question and not duck it. At first no, it wasn't a debacle, but it certainly is now because the reasons for what we are doing there completely changed.

 

As the great (*cough*) Colin Powell once said, "you break it, you have to stay and fix it".

 

And as far as waiting until the UN asked us to get involved, wow. As usual, the UN was a little late to the game and we had to wait for THEM to decide OUR policy? That's reaching for the stars, baby. Just like in Syria, Yemen, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Congo, North Korea (yea, there's a nice one to think about) etc. etc. etc.

[kapkomet]

F***, I don't like this. Either I have to disagree with everything I've said in this thread or I have to agree with Kap.

 

 

Is that something akin to drinking a cup full of shards of glass?

[Soxbadger]

No the key difference is factual, not based on moral equivalences.

 

The factual difference between Syria and Bahrian is that the UN has not authorized intervention. In my opinion, I have not seen anything in those 2 situations that would warrant UNILATERAL US intervention.

 

Do you disagree? Do you think that the US should intervene unilaterally?

 

Because if the answer to that question is yes, then what is your problem with the US intervening non-unilaterally in Libya?

 

If the answer to the question is no, then there is no moral equivalence because you wouldnt support intervention in either case. You are merely using a terrible debate tool to try and confuse people who cant stay on topic and instead get into a moral equivalence debate that can never be won.

 

Now there is also a factual difference between Ivory Coast, in that the UN is actually intervening, just differently than in Libya. In fact the US is also part of the UN action in Ivory Coast.

 

So there once again is no moral equivalence here (unless you completely avoid facts which most moral equivalences do) as the UN is intervening in Ivory Coast. To put it in perspective, the UN has 7k-10k troops on the ground. The Libyan Revolutionary army is believed to have about 1k professional troops.

 

If the UN intervened on the same level in Libya, the UN would have authorized a force troop force 7k larger than the current Revolutionary army. To me that is a far bigger intervention than merely destroying Gaddafi's tools of war. As Ive already said a NFZ is not practical in the Ivory Coast atm, because Gbago is not using heavy machinery. You cant target gunmen in the streets with F-15s, thats just not how it works.

 

So now instead of using the completely false moral equivalency of: U.S. is justifying a war based on humanitarian concerns in the case where other, much more dire humanitarian situations exist at the exact same time.

 

Why not bring some facts to the party, and argue:

 

1) Why the UN should impose a NFZ over Ivory Coast, and what would be the effectiveness. Furthermore, why should the US intervene directly in the Ivory Coast or exceed the scope of the current UN mandate?

 

2) Why should the UN impose a NFZ over Syria or Bahrain, when there has been no request made to the UN for a NFZ by the people of those countries?

 

I have yet to see any footage of protesters asking for UN support or any cries to the UN for support. I try to let countries solve their own problems, before I start sticking my nose into their business. Now if things keep going down the road they are on, and the govts begin to further escalate their suppression, including the use of tanks and heavy weaponry, I would start to believe the UN sua sponte could vote and approve intervention, but I am not sure we are there yet (situation changing rapidly).

 

So no, the reason I dont like moral equivalences is because while in my example I took it to a silly extreme to make it easy to see why they arent valuable, you keep thinking that there is such a big difference between my use when it was:

 

you're judging future/current actions based on past actions.

 

compared to youre use:

 

youre judging factually distinguishable actions and completely disregarding the factual distinctions.

 

In my opinion, my use is actually better at least I am comparing similar facts that occurred at different times.

 

You are comparing different facts and acting like they are the same thing. That is a pretty disingenuous debate tactic if you ask me.

 

I have no problem if you think that the US should intervene more in Ivory Coast and go past the UN mandate. I have no problem if you believe the US should put 50k troops there to protect the people. But if you dont really believe that the US should do more on its own in Ivory Coast, than you dont really have a moral equivalence.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

I've agreed with Kap before, it ain't so bad.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that this Libya thing is a debacle, but Iraq wasn't. I can see the argument that both are, or that Iraq was but Libya perhaps isn't.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I just can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that this Libya thing is a debacle, but Iraq wasn't. I can see the argument that both are, or that Iraq was but Libya perhaps isn't.

 

I'm guessing the general consensus is the Iraq became a debacle, despite the intentions in the beginning, which is why many think that Libya will also become a debacle.

 

But, at least with Iraq there was a goal. At least the President spoke to the country and the world about that goal. Here was have nothing. We started bombing and a week later the President decides to hold a press conference to defend/explain his decision. I'm guessing it's going to be some confusing tirade about all sorts of topics, so that people can latch onto one sentence and define it as the Obama Doctrine. I'll be going with a we bombed because there's (1) an unstable leader, (2) in a bad part of the world, (3) doing bad things to his own people, (4) and there's American interests at stake.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm guessing the general consensus is the Iraq became a debacle, despite the intentions in the beginning, which is why many think that Libya will also become a debacle.

 

But, at least with Iraq there was a goal. At least the President spoke to the country and the world about that goal. Here was have nothing. We started bombing and a week later the President decides to hold a press conference to defend/explain his decision. I'm guessing it's going to be some confusing tirade about all sorts of topics, so that people can latch onto one sentence and define it as the Obama Doctrine. I'll be going with a we bombed because there's (1) an unstable leader, (2) in a bad part of the world, (3) doing bad things to his own people, (4) and there's American interests at stake.

I'm sorry but, that's ridiculous.

 

In Iraq, they had a goal - but it wasn't the goal they stated. They first said "ZOMG WMD WTF BBQ!!!", then it was "Al Qaeda!!!", then it was "Well Saddam was a bad man". Lies, all of them. The real goal was to attempt to take the war on terror to a central location, and in the process, create a democratic allie and stronghold in the region. Basic neo-con stuff.

 

In Libya, the goal is right there for all to see - bomb and patrol to attempt to level the playing field for the rebels to overthrow Qaddafi. Now, people may think that not achievable - I can see that being a good argument. Or they may think we should be doing more, or less. But make no mistake, with Libya, the goals and reasons are much more forthright, and we did it the smart way (actually getting international support, instead of throwing away political capital such that we handicap our future work).

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sorry but, that's ridiculous.

 

In Iraq, they had a goal - but it wasn't the goal they stated. They first said "ZOMG WMD WTF BBQ!!!", then it was "Al Qaeda!!!", then it was "Well Saddam was a bad man". Lies, all of them. The real goal was to attempt to take the war on terror to a central location, and in the process, create a democratic allie and stronghold in the region. Basic neo-con stuff.

 

In Libya, the goal is right there for all to see - bomb and patrol to attempt to level the playing field for the rebels to overthrow Qaddafi. Now, people may think that not achievable - I can see that being a good argument. Or they may think we should be doing more, or less. But make no mistake, with Libya, the goals and reasons are much more forthright, and we did it the smart way (actually getting international support, instead of throwing away political capital such that we handicap our future work).

 

Maybe "goal" wasn't the right word. Let's go with "purpose." The purpose was fighting terrorism and like you said, creating a stronghold in the region.

 

We have no such clearly defined purpose in Libya. We have a bunch of different bulls*** justifications. And that's BS that we garnered international support first. My perception is that other nations threw up a fit that no one was doing anything about MG and then we decided we'd act on behalf of the world (yet again).

 

And yeah, look at all that political capital we threw away. No one trusts us anymore! No one is ever going to ask for our help! Bulls***, bulls***, bulls***. Iraq didn't do anything to hurt us in terms of foreign policy. We might have pissed off some citizens of various countries, but in terms of our actual dealings with countries it didn't do anything. Do we view Russia much different because of their actions in Georgia? Do we view the French different because they didn't want to get involved in Iraq? Nope. It's business as usual and always has been.

 

[StrangeSox]

Maybe "goal" wasn't the right word. Let's go with "purpose." The purpose was fighting terrorism and like you said, creating a stronghold in the region.

 

We have no such clearly defined purpose in Libya. We have a bunch of different bulls*** justifications. And that's BS that we garnered international support first. My perception is that other nations threw up a fit that no one was doing anything about MG and then we decided we'd act on behalf of the world (yet again).

 

And yeah, look at all that political capital we threw away. No one trusts us anymore! No one is ever going to ask for our help! Bulls***, bulls***, bulls***. Iraq didn't do anything to hurt us in terms of foreign policy. We might have pissed off some citizens of various countries, but in terms of our actual dealings with countries it didn't do anything. Do we view Russia much different because of their actions in Georgia? Do we view the French different because they didn't want to get involved in Iraq? Nope. It's business as usual and always has been.

 

Your perception is noticeably divorced from reality.

[Y2HH]

What's going on in Libya has been a long time coming...

 

The reason I support the action in Libya is simple: These bastards tried to kill Marty and Doc back in 1985 over a box of used pinball machine parts. October 25th, 1985 to be exact...shortly after 1:15am. So screw them.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Y2HH