U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[StrangeSox]

Well if it's purely a moral choice and we have infinite resources and no political ramifications, then sure, we should be involved wherever there are human injustices.

 

What's the line for human injustice? What gives a foreign government the right to intervene, and when is that line crossed?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not asking to be a dick or Socratic method your position, these are questions I'm genuinely interested in.

[Jenksismyhero]

What's the line for human injustice? What gives a foreign government the right to intervene, and when is that line crossed?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not asking to be a dick or Socratic method your position, these are questions I'm genuinely interested in.

 

I'd say anytime death/torture/inhuman treatment is involved for sure. The closer question is when inequalities exist, for example unequal rights for women like in "all arab countries." We clearly view that as fundamentally wrong, "they" view that as religious/cultural order. Are we imposing our values on them if we intervene?

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

"Hmm, what's in it for me to stop a country from bombing its own citizens?"

 

 

That's a pretty awful way to look at it. And it's also why the US supports plenty of terrible governments. And I don't think NSS would agree with that position.

To clarify... what I am saying is that you have a finite ability, in both real and political capital, to act militarily in an effective way. That capital is not enough to address all the atrocities of the world. So you make a list of them, prioritized by the best use of that capital. That doesn't necessarily mean its just what's best for the US, although that HAS to be part of the equation... its also about the most significant effect you can have.

 

Libya's current ruling government is headed closer and closer to falling apart, and that's probably good. But it may not get there, it may be able to hold off the protests through violence. In this case, a relatively small set of responses by US and other militaries could be enough to tip it over. That has more value than using 100's of times more resources to invade Iraq, which was clearly a quagmire before we even put boots on the ground.

 

So its really both. You find places where you can do the most good for your resources, but also where you can do the most good for the US. The sweet spot is where those two things merge.

 

[Soxbadger]

A lot of this is all over the place, so I guess Ill just respond to what I feel like (much like the US does.)

 

First, the French helped the US to weaken their enemy Great Britain. If we were a French colony, the French would not have helped us. They were entirely self-motivated, lets not rewrite history.

 

As for what the US should do right now, youre damned if you do and youre damned if you dont. On one hand in order to respect a nation's sovereignty you have to let the nation deal with internal struggle. The US had one of the bloodiest Civil Wars in the history of the world, but Im not sure that it would have helped matters if England or France assisted the Confederacy because Sherman took things to far.

 

On the other hand as we all live after World War II we recognize that there is a line that if crossed other countries must take action.

 

I think the US should do what it can to protect people, whether that be to send troops to the Egypt border to facilitate people leaving Libya or trying to prevent Libyan aircraft from attacking civilians.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Wasn't sure where to put this, its a stretch, but we are talking about North Africa so...

 

The Pirate issue has been escalated for the US. Four US citizens on a yacht were killed by Somali pirates south of Oman. And more worrisome was this quote:

 

A pirate who said his name was Muse Abdi said killing hostages "has now become part of our rules," and he referred to a pirate who was sentenced in a New York court last week to 33 years in prison for a 2009 attack on the U.S. cargo vessel the Maersk Alabama.

 

"From now on, anyone who tries to rescue the hostages in our hands will only collect dead bodies," he said. "It will never ever happen that hostages are rescued and we are hauled to prison."

 

Tactics are changing.

[bmags]

I really don't like blaming the victim...but really? What the hell are you doing there?

[Balta1701]

I really don't like blaming the victim...but really? What the hell are you doing there?

Distributing Bibles and heading towards the Suez.

 

Really, any ship heading for the Suez is at a reasonable amount of risk.

[bmags]

Distributing Bibles and heading towards the Suez.

 

Really, any ship heading for the Suez is at a reasonable amount of risk.

 

the yacht part kind of ruined it for me.

[Balta1701]

the yacht part kind of ruined it for me.

How do you define "Yacht" though? The "Yacht" that a Goldman Sachs exec owns may be somewhat different from this one.

[Soxbadger]

If there is evidence of the govt hiring foreign mercenaries, I think that crosses the line where outside govts have to do something to protect the people.

[Balta1701]

If there is evidence of the govt hiring foreign mercenaries, I think that crosses the line where outside govts have to do something to protect the people.

The U.S. government currently hires foreign mercenaries for all sorts of projects, including domestically.

[NorthSideSox72]

The U.S. government currently hires foreign mercenaries for all sorts of projects, including domestically.

I'd like to hear some details on the bolded.

 

[Balta1701]

I'd like to hear some details on the bolded.

Blackwater was heavily involved in the Katrina response, for example. They also appear to have contracts to assist in the "war on drugs", although that's definitely more murky. They also provide private security details for lord knows how many people

[NorthSideSox72]

Blackwater was heavily involved in the Katrina response, for example. They also appear to have contracts to assist in the "war on drugs", although that's definitely more murky. They also provide private security details for lord knows how many people

LOL, so Blackwater having people to aid in Katrina means they hired foreign mercenaries? Come on. I dislike Xe as much as anyone else, but let's not get ridiculous here.

 

[Balta1701]

LOL, so Blackwater having people to aid in Katrina means they hired foreign mercenaries? Come on. I dislike Xe as much as anyone else, but let's not get ridiculous here.

Well, yeah, that's exactly what that means. Private mercenaries were deployed on U.S. soil. Either that's legal or its not. At no point did I say that they were killing U.S. citizens or anything like that.

 

Edit: now that I think about it, the original point I was trying to make was that the presence of foreign mercenaries on its own doesn't mean that international forces have the right to come in. I think your skepticism there supports my original point.

[bmags]

On BBC radio just now they reported that soldiers in tripoli told them that Qaddafi is holding their families in barracks as a way of forcing them to carry out their orders.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah hiring Blackwater to help in Katrina is equivalent to hiring mercenaries to kill civilians.

 

/rolls eyes

 

I guess next time I will be more careful and specifically say what I mean, instead of giving people credit for understanding the underlying point.

 

If there is evidence of the govt hiring foreign mercenaries to attack and kill its own people, I think that crosses the line where outside govts have to do something to protect the people.

 

I doubt youll find an example of the US doing that unless you go back to the Civil War, which was pre-Geneva, Pre-UN.

 

[Balta1701]

Yes, I would agree with that clause. However, I also would say that many countries have hired foreign mercenaries to supplement their own armed forces, particularly in the case of an open rebellion.

 

As a general point...I want no part of an intervention in Libya. The idea that there are mercenaries there doesn't impact that opinion one bit.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, I would agree with that clause. However, I also would say that many countries have hired foreign mercenaries to supplement their own armed forces, particularly in the case of an open rebellion.

 

As a general point...I want no part of an intervention in Libya. The idea that there are mercenaries there doesn't impact that opinion one bit.

I don't think you have the same definition of "mercenaries" as I do. No one was brought to US soil to act as soldiers in any military sense.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It was the local police that were doing some seriously terrible things in the wake of Katrina, not soldiers or security contractors.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was the local police that were doing some seriously terrible things in the wake of Katrina, not soldiers or security contractors.

That's my recollection as well. Certainly no one was brought in from outside the US and acted as military forces in any case.

 

 

[ptatc]

Blackwater was heavily involved in the Katrina response, for example. They also appear to have contracts to assist in the "war on drugs", although that's definitely more murky. They also provide private security details for lord knows how many people

 

Most of their work is private security in this manner. A friend of mine is a high ranking person in the "firm."

 

[Balta1701]

If anyone out there needed convinced that actively intervening in Libya is an awful, awful idea, this ought to do it.

Two senators urged the Obama administration to give "tangible" support to the opposition in Libya in terms of recognizing the opposition as the legitimate government, arming the opposition and establishing a no-fly zone over the North African country.

 

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning from Egypt, as they've been on a regional tour over the Presidents Day weeklong recess.

 

"This is a real moment of choice for the international community," Lieberman said of the bloody crisis in Libya, where dictator Moammar Gadhafi has had forces fire on protesters and deaths are estimated to have exceeded 1,000. "What we're hearing here in Egypt is the Arab world is watching. Will the world stand by and let a leader like Moammar Gadhafi slaughter his own people?"

 

Both senators welcomed the unilateral sanctions implemented by President Obama at the end of the week, but stressed that more needs to be done.

 

 

...

"I would provide them with arms," Lieberman said, adding that he understood "why the administation hesitated at the beginning but frankly I wish we had spoken out much earlier and clearer against the Gadhafi regime."

[knightni]

An example of someone with too much power.

[StrangeSox]

An interesting thought I read elsehwere:

 

how accurate is this ironic observation: that it seems like the US is happy to intervene in pursuit of its interests unless their help is actually requested and there is a clear ethical case, if not a practical roadmap. i mean, it's been said before, but helping the rebels in one country might be against US interests in others but, libya is also an oil exporter, so i mean helping out the future boss could be said to be in its interests as well

 

this is kinda tangential to the discussion of what "should" be done, except in as much as "act in your national interest" is an ethical imperative for a politician