Libya Poll

[StrangeSox]

The US has said from the start that we have "unique" military capabilities for the first operations, ie we can jam every signal you can think of, fly in without being picked up on radar and take out their anti-aircraft defenses. The plan is then to step down to a logistics/support role, and it appears that is happening.

[StrangeSox]

I'd say it's pretty convenient to consider a handful of tank kills to be significant participation.

 

It was his main tank brigade on it's way to Benghazi, wasn't it?

 

It's pretty convenient to pretend this hasn't already had a measurable impact on lowering civilian deaths.

[Balta1701]

It's pretty convenient to pretend this hasn't already had a measurable impact on lowering civilian deaths.

Except for the people hit by the bombs. But they don't count since we're not selling arms to them.

[mr_genius]

let other countries handle it

[StrangeSox]

Except for the people hit by the bombs. But they don't count since we're not selling arms to them.

 

Source?

[Y2HH]

Except for the people hit by the bombs. But they don't count since we're not selling arms to them.

 

Just stop.

[StrangeSox]

let other countries handle it

When your military expenditures dwarf a good chunk of the rest of the world combined, you'll probably have to step up your game for international operations.

 

[Balta1701]

When your military expenditures dwarf a good chunk of the rest of the world combined, you'll probably have to step up your game for international operations.

So if we cut the defense budget we wouldn't get suckered into this type of campaign as often?

 

I'm game.

[Balta1701]

Source?

I need to provide a source that says when a bomb hits something and explodes, people die?

[StrangeSox]

I need to provide a source that says when a bomb hits something and explodes, people die?

 

You need to provide a source that civilians have been killed by UN forces. Because it seems pretty clear that they've prevented at least some deaths at the hands of Gaddafi. Otherwise you're just flailing around a bunch.

[StrangeSox]

At what point, if ever, do you think it'd be appropriate for the US to step in with military action to prevent a humanitarian disaster?

[Balta1701]

You need to provide a source that civilians have been killed by UN forces. Because it seems pretty clear that they've prevented at least some deaths at the hands of Gaddafi. Otherwise you're just flailing around a bunch.

No, read my words. I didn't say that civilians had been killed by U.S. forces (although the idea that they haven't been killed by a couple hundred missile strikes is just ludicrous). I said people. Why do the people fighting in the Libyan army and dying now count less than the people who rose up against Qadaffi?

[Balta1701]

At what point, if ever, do you think it'd be appropriate for the US to step in with military action to prevent a humanitarian disaster?

Rwanda. Anything less than a complete and total genocide and the military campaign itself is going to cause a humanitarian catastrophe on the level of the catastrophe it is trying to prevent.

[StrangeSox]

No, read my words. I didn't say that civilians had been killed by U.S. forces (although the idea that they haven't been killed by a couple hundred missile strikes is just ludicrous). I said people. Why do the people fighting in the Libyan army and dying now count less than the people who rose up against Qadaffi?

 

Because they were on their way to shell a city? And probably massacre a bunch of people?

[Balta1701]

Because they were on their way to shell a city? And probably massacre a bunch of people?

And now they were massacred. My point exactly.

[StrangeSox]

And now they were massacred. My point exactly.

 

You've gotten to the point where you are defending Gaddafi's military brutally oppressing an uprising by killing hundreds/thousands of people because, hey, they're people too!

 

There's still a whole bunch of time left to bear out your ideas. But so far, bombing soldiers who were on their way to bomb rebels and civilians doesn't amount to a humanitarian crisis.

[Soxbadger]

You mean Gaddafi troops who were going to kill civilians were massacred after they were ordered by the UN to impose a cease fire? After Gaddafi stated there was a cease fire and kept his troops marching?

 

I dont call that a massacre, I call that saving innocent civilians from a massacre.

[StrangeSox]

I was just following orders!

The Tragic Tale of the Humanitarian Disaster Inflicted on German Concentration Camp Soldiers by the Allied Forces

[Balta1701]

I was just following orders!

The Tragic Tale of the Humanitarian Disaster Inflicted on German Concentration Camp Soldiers by the Allied Forces

Well, at least by the textbook definition of Godwin's law, you just lost.

[Balta1701]

You mean Gaddafi troops who were going to kill civilians were massacred after they were ordered by the UN to impose a cease fire? After Gaddafi stated there was a cease fire and kept his troops marching?

 

I dont call that a massacre, I call that saving innocent civilians from a massacre.

Considering that the people of Benghazi had taken up arms against those soldiers, I call it choosing sides in a civil war.

[StrangeSox]

Well, at least by the textbook definition of Godwin's law, you just lost.

 

Not really, it's a perfectly valid reducto ad absurdem.

 

Or you can admit that you shifted goalposts such that "killing soldiers who were on their way to kill other soldiers as well as a bunch of civilians and just generally decimate a city" is now a humanitarian disaster.

[StrangeSox]

How many civilians were killed when those tanks were bombed?

 

How many civilians would have been killed if those tanks had rolled on to Benghazi?

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

You are 100% correct that they took up arms against Gaddafi. And you would be 100% correct if you limited your argument to: "We arent sure who to believe, so perhaps we should not believe anyone." I agree with that completely. I cant say that the people of Benghazi are good or bad people, I can only go by the facts.

 

The UN first asked for a cease fire. Gaddafi stated that he would comply. If Gaddafi complied with the cease fire and the revolutionaries continued to attack, I would pause and consider what is going on. But what happened made the UN act how it did. Gaddafi on one hand said he would comply with a ceasefire, at the same time he was saying that if he got to Benghazi he would kill them all, while at the same time his troops were still attacking civilian targets.

 

Maybe the revolutionaries arent the best, but there is absolutely no way I can trust Gaddafi or anything that is coming from his camp. Because he has proven to be a liar, it gives credibility to his adversaries. This was why it was so important to let Gaddafi hang himself with his own rope, so it became apparent to the world that he could not be trusted.

 

As for choosing sides in a Civil War, maybe that is what we have done. But we only did it because Gaddafi forced the international communities hand. If you really wanted to make a great argument youd have pointed out General Sherman in the South, when he clearly was targeting civilians and whether that should have allowed other nations to interfere on behalf of the South (unfortunately that goes back to my might makes right argument).

Edited March 21, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

While we're on the subject of the international community, has it occurred to you that a significant chunk of that community is also playing to domestic political audiences? France and the UK absolutely. There's a reason why they let Sarkozy out front.

 

The quickest example, FWIW, is the UK, where there is still an ongoing scandal over the fact that the last government allowed the Lockerbie bomber out of jail in no small part to secure oil revenues. The next government is now supporting an anti-Quadaffi military campaign.

[StrangeSox]

I do not care about internal UK or French politics. That has no effect on whether or not less civilians will be killed thanks to the no-fly-zone and bombing of Gaddafi's forces that were in violation of a cease-fire.