|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Hardly uncontroversial. There are those ignorant of what it entails and the reality of the situation in Libya. We even had a poster come in here, where there is all this information to be informed, and say that it's Obama starting another war in the Middle-East (Yes he actually thought Libya is in the Middle-East.) There are also those who just don't like Obama regardless of what he does and use this as hate rhetoric. I suppose they are all short-comings of ignorant people though, not the operation. There is also fair criticism to be made, particularly suggestions that Obama did not do enough to prepare/inform the American people about the crisis and our military response beforehand. To a considerable extent this was unavoidable given everybody's attention on the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis, but I'd be hard pressed to deny that the President could have done a much better job articulating what we're doing, why we're doing it, what it entails and what we expect to see happen as a result.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Ticonderoguy posted:I personally group North Africa with the Middle East but mainly because of the cultural similarities (Read: Islam), however there is also some opposition from informed people and this about sums up their argument: I think there are two factors that trump this argument and make it obsolete. One is that this is a UN sanctioned intervention that all nations voted and agreed on (in theory), not a declaration of war by one sovereign nation to another. Secondly, the stance the resolution takes is this is an intervention to remove the ability for Gad to massacre civilians, it is not support for rebels to overthrow their government. In practice this is exactly what is happening as we've seen. Even the bombing of the Gad compound was a surgical strike to remove HQ operations, a legit target. I believe those two factors make a huge difference in the legitimacy of this intervention. It's obvious that the US govt hopes the rebels will overthrow their government and install a democratic system in the country. It's not exactly a morally void or unethical aspiration. Behind the scenes the US is most likely either arming the rebels themselves or encouraging Egypt etc. to arm them (as they have been.) Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
quote:The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. Absent evidence that the rebels are literally Pol Pot, it seems highly, highly likely that them winning will create a nation morally superior to one that uses AA guns on unarmed protestors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
 AJE reporter and thread-favorite Ayman Mohyeldin is the guest on tonight's Colbert Report.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Absent evidence that the rebels are literally Pol Pot, it seems highly, highly likely that them winning will create a nation morally superior to one that uses AA guns on unarmed protestors. I took it to mean that the if we let the rebels win then we will effectively create a weak democracy with all kinds of different factions (tribes etc.) trying to seek power for themselves only which and factions (NOT POLITICAL PARTIES) will eventually be the downfall of that government and a new Dictator will take power once again. Sort of similar to what happened to the Weimar Republic after WW1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I like the idea that a country, or a group of countries, other than us use the stick. Not that we have too. Look at darfur, kosovo, etc. It is kind of funny how we as Americans select wars. Also OBAMA come on man, phoning in when 4 presidents are at a charity event, whats wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
quadratic posted:
Oh hell yes. E: Just want to reiterate my desire to see that man win a Pulitzer. Narmi fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Ticonderoguy posted:I took it to mean that the if we let the rebels win then we will effectively create a weak democracy with all kinds of different factions (tribes etc.) trying to seek power for themselves only which and factions (NOT POLITICAL PARTIES) will eventually be the downfall of that government and a new Dictator will take power once again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
I ask again, why not lob a tomahawk towards Libyan TV? The rebels are fighting the Gaddafi forces and the propaganda at the same time. When the link is broken Gaddafi wouldn't have the advantage of hauling dead people in front of cameras and pointing a finger at NATO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
There appears to a massacre imminent at one of the big mosques in Dara'a, Syria. No way to confirm though. An 11 year old child there did die from inhaling tear gas, however.cioxx posted:I ask again, why not lob a tomahawk towards Libyan TV? The rebels are fighting the Gaddafi forces and the propaganda at the same time. When the link is broken Gaddafi wouldn't have the advantage of hauling dead people in front of cameras and pointing a finger at NATO. Because it's not part of the US/UN's mission to stop Gaddafi's propaganda, and it's probably not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. If it's anything like other countries with state TVs, everyone knows it's a propaganda network. Xandu fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
Presumably because state TV is staffed by non-combatants and regardless of the nature of their "news" it would set a bad precedent for letting governments target the media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I ask again, why not lob a tomahawk towards Libyan TV? Why do you want to bomb civilians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:But, we don't know that. The problem with going TRIBES! every time we talk about the rebels is that it ignores much of recent history and the grievances that practically everyone bears against Qadaffi. To be sure, it's not something we can sweep under the rug and it would be naive to assume a full liberal democracy will spawn in its place. But by the same token that uncertainty also means we cannot assume the worst case scenario either; it falsely excludes the middle. Everyone in the opposition does indeed bear grievances against Gaddaafi, but unfortunately all do not likewise share a unified desire for what the country should look like after his removal (as far as we have been able to tell from watching and reading the news). We have already seen that the opposition is indeed extremely fractured, with some groups like the professional unions rejecting negotiation with Gaddaafi out of hand while their self-appointed leader and former minister of justice `Abd Al-Jalil engaged in back-door talks. Shouting TRIBES! obviously doesn't help explain the situation, but it's important to remember that, to date, the opposition has shown itself to be extremely fractured, and there is no reason to expect that everyone will unite and calmly transition into democracy once Gaddaafi is gone. There are a lot of disparate groups, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that they have different visions of a future Libyan state, and that they might easily resort to violence when it comes time to determine the form of that future state. Ramms+ein fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I ask again, why not lob a tomahawk towards Libyan TV? It's a new addition to US doctrine when fighting arab nations, known as the "Mohammed al Sahaf Rule": enemy propaganda is worth three armored divisions -- for the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s27Oq5ot0ZI
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Why do you want to bomb civilians? Greater good. If that what it takes. But I do believe it would be possible to bring down the central broadcasting without civilian casualties. By the time they rebuild it might take a month or two. cioxx fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
Man, I gave up on Hugo Chavez not being an rear end in a top hat ages ago after he started suspending freedoms and buddying up with murderous dictators...but are you really gonna pull this poo poo on me Kucinich? I loved you! 
Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Sean Penn must feel pretty loving stupid now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. If that what it takes. What greater good? What are you even talking about? The coalition forces would lose all support internationally and inside Libya if they purposefully bombed civilians inside the Libyan TV building. Young Freud posted:I'd rather see a "soft" takedown, where you jam the television signal and replace it with your own broadcasts or international news. This, however, is a good idea. Just rebroadcast Al-Jazeera Arabic. Probably very complicated otherwise they would have done this by now. Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. If that what it takes. I'd rather see a "soft" takedown, where you jam the television signal and replace it with your own broadcasts or international news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. If that what it takes. That right there is the banner under which every grotesque episode of tyrrany and genocide of the last thousand years has been perpetrated. Surely you can see that if you can justify attacking civilians that way, you can justify anything that way? Torture, WMD, oppression, ethnic cleansing... it all comes down to someone claiming they're doing it for the "greater good, if that's what it takes", and if a few innocents die along the way, it's sad but a necessary sacrifice? Even if you cannot see it that way, consider: if we "good guys" consider enemy media outlets as legitimate targets, then we must assume the "bad guys" will do the same, in which case, how can we expect Ghaddafi not to execute every foreign journalist he can lay his hands on within Libya?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. Greater good doesn't help the families of the people that you've killed forget their loss. Can't you at least state some tangible claims, like "by killing 50 innocent people I plan to save the lives of 500"? When NATO bombed the Serbian radio in 1999, they killed a bunch of workers for no good reason. It was a shameless war crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Believe it or not, the military always makes life and death decisions and evaluates the price of human life as conditions change on the ground. I never advocated purposefully bombing civilians, but if it incapacitates Gaddafi's propaganda machine it saves a lot more lives. People in cities would be far more willing to aid the resistance when they're not being bombarded by 24 hour propaganda that skews against the rebels. I would prefer if they used precision targeting on the critical infrastructure that makes those broadcasts possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Man, I gave up on Hugo Chavez not being an rear end in a top hat ages ago after he started suspending freedoms and buddying up with murderous dictators...but are you really gonna pull this poo poo on me Kuchinich? I loved you! This is exactly why I like Kuchinich. He's consistent and as a pacifist myself i'm proud of him for being able to break party lines and criticize a president from his own party. Anyways , as i've said before i'm agaisnt the intervention for moral reasons and while I find the idea of thugs like Chavez and and Castro decrying the intervention to be laughable (their simply hypocrites) I think it does deserve criti. cisim http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/22/libya-war-pacifism
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I never advocated purposefully bombing civilians, but if it incapacitates Gaddafi's propaganda machine it saves a lot more lives. Bombing a TV station on purpose entails purposefully bombing civilians. cioxx posted:People in cities would be far more willing to aid the resistance when they're not being bombarded by 24 hour propaganda that skews against the rebels. I would prefer if they used precision targeting on the critical infrastructure that makes those broadcasts possible. This is assuming that the people in cities controlled by Gaddaafi are motivated to withhold support for the rebels due primarily to TV propaganda, rather than to other factors such as fear of retaliation by Gaddaafi forces or a sense of die hard loyalty to the Gaddaafi regime, for whatever reason. I suspect that Libyan state TV is viewed by Libyans to be just as propagandistic as we view it. A healthy mistrust of media, especially state-controlled media, is very common in the Arab world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'd rather see a "soft" takedown, where you jam the television signal and replace it with your own broadcasts or international news. While this is a very good point, it isn't going to happen without a huge military reform. All they know how to do is blow stuff up, and I wish that was hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:This is exactly why I like Kuchinich. He's consistent and as a pacifist myself i'm proud of him for being able to break party lines and criticize a president from his own party. This was definitely the right issue to make a stand for or criticize Obama for!  I'm glad Kucinich seems to share Rep. Peter King's views. "If it's non-Americans being murdered, gently caress 'em!"
Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Believe it or not, the military always makes life and death decisions and evaluates the price of human life as conditions change on the ground. I wouldn't see always, but there is a bit of 'cold arithmetic' to many types of military planning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
cioxx posted:Greater good. If that what it takes. gently caress it, let God sort 'em out, right? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Ramms+ein posted:Bombing a TV station on purpose entails purposefully bombing civilians. It's not only the Libyan people I'm worried about. The pictures from the state propaganda are being played back on CNN, Russian TV, and even Al Jazeera. Of course, some disclaimer is made prior to showing it but that's what people around the world see alongside videos of rebels going against tanks with small caliber guns. It's going to end up pulling the rug underneath the NATO strikes. The leftists everywhere are already making noise how the coalition is bombing civilians, when it's factually incorrect. The truth ends up lost on twitter feeds and reaches only those who are well-informed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'd rather see a "soft" takedown, where you jam the television signal and replace it with your own broadcasts or international news. Yeah, this. It might be really handy, once Gadaffi is eventually out of power, to have a state television program that can help direct people to UN relief areas or announce elections. The US has its own propaganda plane in the area for now, but that thing can't stay forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:By consistent do you mean "ignores context"? The thousands of civilians being slaughtered all over Libya thank Kucinich for his righteous and firm stand against a UN-mandated operation to stop genocide. Truly a defender of the "little guy"! It really is the same sort of thing that gets people criticized as "BEING A FLIPFLOPPER!!!!!" I'm not sure whereabouts "constancy in the face of utterly differing circumstances or new information," gets championed. Different situations have different facts and contexts and repercussions and moral basis to begin with, and ought to be treated with a new examination each time. To grab this and try and hoist it in the air screaming about pacifism-at-all-costs is about as retarded as you can get, from a moral as well as a PR standpoint. It's not even intelligent. Force isn't the best thing in the world, no, but sometimes you do have to step in and stop civilians from getting shredded by AA guns and autocannons. I can see being nervous about where it's going to end up, and maybe even a bit jaded by the possibility of another lengthy combat operation, and worried about the costs and loss of life. But standing up and going, "NO NO FORCE AT ALL NO THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE WAR ALWAYS IS" is, and I will be blunt, dumb. Nombres fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
cioxx posted:It's not only the Libyan people I'm worried about. The pictures from the state propaganda are being played back on CNN, Russian TV, and even Al Jazeera. Of course, some disclaimer is made prior to showing it but that's what people around the world see alongside videos of rebels going against tanks with small caliber guns. The leftists would also be correct if the coalition followed your brilliant tactics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Nombres posted:t really is the same sort of thing that gets people criticized as "BEING A FLIPFLOPPER!!!!!" Now random conspiracy-theory-loving internet Ron Paul fans totally love you Kucinich, I'm sure that's reassuring. I'm finally just washing my hands of the American liberal establishment as a whole. loving unintelligible animals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
RoboTiio posted:gently caress it, let God sort 'em out, right? I know it's unpopular to be a utilitarian when it comes to matters of war, but I am on the side of less suffering and even less conflicts. Obviously, taking out the TV station is not on par with saving millions of Japanese lives by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, but I believe it will save a lot of lives in this conflict. If the coalition stops enforcing the no fly zone and stops targeting Gaddafi's military assets then it'll be over for rebels. A good way to guarantee that is with domestic pressure in Western nations who are getting a dose of Gaddafi's bullshit on their TVs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The leftists would also be correct if the coalition followed your brilliant tactics. It's interesting. Bomb the station --> Why? --> Because leftists might believe it. --> Believe what? --> That we're bombing civilians and civilians are being killed. --> So what can we do about it? --> Bomb a civilian building. Really, I've yet to know a single person who can take those Gadaffi broadcasts seriously. Unless I'm seeing some Nombres-only version, and Mecha-Goebbels is orchestrating Libyan State TV, I don't think we can worry about State TV tarnishing the image of the coalition too much. EDIT: Let's not forget that jamming media networks rarely tends to go over that well. The same people that would use Gadaffi's broadcasts to justify their anti-Libya attack would probably use his lack of broadcasts due to a bombing of a civilian station as evidence that the Coalition didn't want stuff getting out. Bottom line: crazy people are resourceful. They will work with what you give them, even if you give them nothing. Nombres fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Exactly, not only Kucinich but now The Daily Show and other liberal sources are whining about hypocrisy and pacifism. They let the Bush administration get away without being indicted with war crimes, and NOW this is the issue they decide to make a fierce stand on? Libyan massacres? Why are you so angry, bombing campaigns are not exactly seamless affairs. So far so good, but for how long? My fear is an expansion of this conflict, beyond just protecting civilians. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why are you so angry, bombing campaigns are not exactly seamless affairs. So far so good, but for how long? Let's wait for actual evidence of wrongdoing before condemning Obama for committing wrongdoing. I'm willing to see how this plays out and if we truly establish a clear endgame and do whatever is in our power to restrict civilian casualties I'm willing to support Obama. A healthy dose of objective skepticism is needed here, but let's wait for some actual evidence before passing judgement. The surest thing that will save civilians will be the defeat of Qaffadi. Libyans will never be safe until we can ensure victory for the rebels. EDIT: I've heard news carry stories of funerals for the victims of bombing attacks, funerals that drew heavy skepticism from many (actual) journalists that the dead were actual bombing victims and that the funerals weren't just pro-Qaddafi propaganda. So the lovely journalism is out there. Democrazy fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why are you so angry, bombing campaigns are not exactly seamless affairs. So far so good, but for how long? My fear is an expansion of this conflict, beyond just protecting civilians. I agree with this. I want to note that my position above wasn't HELL YEAH BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIGHT 'EM UP SARGE, just that I think pacifism-at-all-costs is something of a morally bankrupt position to take in this situation, thus why I heavily disagree with Kucinich. Anti-war in general is a good neutral gear to be in - war is bad, after all. It would be bad if we had to get involved in the war, even if we were forced to by some fluke in the war that lead to a rapidly collapsing rebel front and Gadaffi going nuts on the survivors. (This is not a prediction.) This does not mean we go, "I don't like war," and continue letting Gadaffi go nuts. There's such a thing as being able to ideologically suck it up for what very well might be a greater good - you (universal) might not like conflict, but I'm willing to bet that's because there's bloodshed, and I'm willing to submit it'd be hypocritical to avoid conflict with the objective of avoiding bloodshed, and by doing so encourage and allow the commission of an even greater deal of bloodshed, if that makes sense. Skepticism is good, but so is a healthy dose of realism. Nombres fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Why are you so angry, bombing campaigns are not exactly seamless affairs. So far so good, but for how long? My fear is an expansion of this conflict, beyond just protecting civilians. Expansion to where? Also, could you tell me if it would be acceptable to you if coalition forces bombed a Gaddafi outpost with 10 human shields where failure to act would result in a massacre of 500 civilians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Speaking of bombing Campaigns, what has this one involved so far? BBC quote:0359: The Pentagon says that of Tuesday, the US military had flown 212 aerial missions over Libya, while 124 had been flown by other coalition forces. A total of 108 air strikes had been carried out and 162 Tomahawk missiles had been fired, it adds. Included in the US count is one mulligan. Tonight it sounds like there's been more bombing in Tripoli. 7 journalists captured by pro regime forces have also been released today. cioxx posted:Also, could you tell me if it would be acceptable to you if coalition forces bombed a Gaddafi outpost with 10 human shields where failure to act would result in a massacre of 500 civilians. Were this to happen, I'd simply go back to the last page and choose a new path. I don't know why I'd buy Choose Your Own Adventure Coalition Bombing of a Rogue Nation though, it doesn't sound like as much fun as pretending I'm a ninja. farraday fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 05:08
|
|
