farraday posted:

Sadly the article is desperately US-centric. Granted it undoubtedly all came from sources within the US, but gives the impression Europeans weren't involved or had unimportant roles/decision making.

Belief in the centrality of the US to all international processes is not helped by journalism that portrays the US as central to all international processes.

KungfooMF posted:

The OBL thread taught me that killing an unarmed man is the ultimate act of evil and that celebrating such a death is disgusting. In short, I learned my feelings were wrong. No matter how many atrocities are committed by a person, no matter how many murders, that person's life is valuable enough that he should be shown mercy and put on trial.

The OBL thread has made me outraged at this act of murder perpetrated on poor, unarmed Muammar.

Fiend posted:

Pragmatism isn't something I'd associate with a neocon agenda.


My favorite part about this post is you used the context of a war crime to explain how ambushes work rather than the ambush on the convoy in Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger.

Fiend posted:

Ironically they also died before they were given a trial.

Two Plus Four posted:

I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. Gaddafi had every right to use his army to put down the resistance just like the US would have every right to use their army to put up an uprising here in the United States. Irregardless of what he did or was doing. We can't summarily go in and use our forces to destabilize a region and that's exactly what we are doing. I certainly believe that the middle east BEFORE the Iraq invasion may have not been the best but it was stable, now we have all forms of new governments popping up with unknown ideals and plans for their countries. The unknown is the scary part.

Mr. Self Destruct posted:

ThePutty posted:

I think the biggest hypocritical thing about NATO is how they won't intervene in Syria or Yemen, both nations who have pretty much the exact same circumstances as Gaddafi over diplomatic and strategic intentions, rather than the people of both countries themselves.

CNN posted:

According to Reuters, Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said an already-injured Gadhafi was "hit in the head by a bullet" as someone - apparently anti-Gadhafi forces who had captured him - was driving him to a hospital Thursday. Jibril was citing what he said was a post-mortem report, according to Reuters.

Jibril said that before the run to the hospital, Gadhafi was found hiding in a sewage pipe and then shot in the arm, according to Reuters. Gadhafi was then put into a truck, which was headed to a hospital. However, the truck was "caught in crossfire," and a bullet struck Gadhafi in the head, Jibril said, according to Reuters.

CNN posted:

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced on Thursday – hours after Moammar Gadhafi was killed – that the alliance eventually "will terminate our mission" in that North African nation.

"We will terminate our mission in coordination with the United Nations and the National Transitional Council. With the reported fall of Bani Walid and Sirte, that moment has now moved much closer," Rasmussen said.

quote:

"We in al-Nahda are prepared to make an alliance with Moncef Marzouki's Congress Party for the Republic and [Mustafa] Ben Jaafar's Ettakatol, given they are not far from us in their views and also that these two parties had a large share of the vote," Ali Larayd, a member of al-Nahda's executive committee, told Reuters.

Bulky Brute posted:

Yes, it seems to me the liberal bloodlust for Libya rests on the argument that military intervention (read: bombing) by NATO powers can sometimes (when??) be a force of good, or even serve a humanitarian purpose. On a more unconscious level, I'd say American liberals are okay with war if a Democrat president starts it, and that's a big part of their uncritical attitude towards this war.

Xandu posted:

The problem with this hypothetical is that no situation, not even Gaddafi massacring his own people, is that black and white. When you start to view intervention through that sort of mindset, it leads to terrible opinions where you start to think every bad thing happening in the world, and there are lots, deserves a NATO or UN response.

edit: To elaborate, intervention has consequences. In this specific case, the intervention has gone well so far and didn't require a large ground force and we haven't seen a civil war breakout. We still don't know what's going to happen to all the guns that were handed out by western forces (and they were handed out), who will ultimately end up in power, the long-term consequences of such a war on the population, etc. But all things considered, it went pretty well. A lot of that was luck though, when Obama and Sarkozy, et al agreed to a no-fly zone and to support the rebels, it was first and foremost a political and foreign policy decision. It wasn't based on the military feasability of such a campaign or a strong knowledge of who we were supporting and the situation on the ground or how it would turn out, and that's a problem because it can mean intervention in places where it's not warranted or where it will have disastrous consequences.

Namarrgon posted:

Saudi Arabia - I think it resulted in women being allowed to drive so far.

Hamelekim posted:

Hamelekim posted:

It would be more precise to call it the Anglo-American banking establishment. There are three powers vying for control right now, China, Russia, and the Anglo-American establishment. The rest of the NATO countries can be included under the last category, to various degrees.

Brown Moses posted:

Here's a poll from YouGov


Considering those findings lets have a poll of our own.
1 - Do you support or oppose sending British allied troops into Syria to help overthrow President Bashar al-Assad?
2 - Do you support or oppose a no-fly zone over Syria to stop the Syrian air force from attacking rebels or civilians?
3 - Do you support or oppose the idea of providing arms to civilian rebels?
4 - Do you support or oppose the idea of sending British allied troops into Syria to protect civilians from attack?

Personally I'm opposed to all of them:
1 - A ground invasion would just be a huge loving disaster for the entire region.
2 - A no-fly zone would be totally ineffective as the atrocities are being committed by ground troops.
3 - Providing weapons would be problematic as the opposition is pretty divided at the moment, and can't be said to represent a wide number of different groups in Syria, such as the Kurds, and those weapons could end up being used in oppressing other groupsin the long term.
4 - Same as number one.

Xandu posted:

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, Mohammad Morsi, is linking the Camp David Accords to continued US aid!

https://twitter.com/#!/Ikhwanweb

Article 5 posted:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 posted:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

-on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
-on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Charliegrs posted:

Is it possible that if theres another security council resolution China and Russia will abstain from voting on it instead of voting no? And if that happens does that basically pass the resolution?

Ultras Lazio posted:

I've read this 5 times and still can't understand a word of it...

Xandu posted:

Actually, that one's pretty easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Border

Zedsdeadbaby posted:

This does not mean it's ok to kill detainees. We have the Geneva Conventions for this sort of thing. I loving hate it when people say anything goes in war, when that's just simply not true. Why do so many people find it difficult to comprehend that ethical actions can be undertaken in times of war too?

Brown Moses posted:

I was told by Foreign Policy I had to use my real name, but if anyone does decide to look me up they are going to find a lot of gay porn as my only namesake on the internet is a gay porn star from the 80s.

Charlz Guybon posted:

What's the point of having marine guards if they can't gun down attacking mobs? Seems like it's just adding more potential victims.

az jan jananam posted:

Libyans have set up a page on facebook condemning the attack




"There is no religion in terrorism"

Cephalocidal posted:

Choking to death doesn't sound less awful than being blown up.

McDowell posted:

http://youtu.be/LCQa4iFmkW4

http://youtu.be/1GPtMfhpQ4Y

Spitting Image seems like a proto LF.

There are no principles in US Foreign Policy. It's a complete jumble of Early Cold War "Contain Soviet Influence", Kissinger "cynically work with dictators" real politick, and NeoCon "Contain Bad Guys and Spread Democracy" Crusading.

There are no innocent and guilty parties, you can go all the way to Columbus and the resulting metastasis of Western Civilization if you really want to point fingers. I'd say the Arab Spring has been a good thing, giving several nations some measure of legitimate popular sovereignty, but we are seeing some ugly growing pains now.

At least these growing pains are a bit more "natural" than the insurgency that formed in Iraq after we fired everyone in the old government and more or less imposed a Constitution. Of course would the Arab Spring have happened without this? We'll leave that to Harry Turtledove.

http://youtu.be/oFrvr7EB66g

Amun Khonsu posted:

I think the dumbest thing governments in the west can do is close Embassies to make a statement, like Canada did with Iran. It solves nothing, closes doors on peaceful methods to problemsolve should they arise and throws fuel to the fire.

steve1 posted:

What do you mean by "going hull down"?

Devil Child posted:

I'm more than happy to see my points actually refuted if you want this to be the case, what with this being the "Debate & Discussion" thread. Acting like I'm the one wrong after repeated failures to refute me by telling me to get out, and I promise I'll get even worse.

If you actually want to change the topic to something other than what an rear end in a top hat I am, actually respond and/or refute the new points instead of telling me what an rear end in a top hat I am.

cochise posted:

They're determined to make it work even after the previous 12903821903810293821 times failed.

Xandu posted:

Movie in the making right there.

Sucrose posted:

No occupation force was going to turn that shitstorm of a war into something good.

CrazyLoon posted:

I have no idea who this amazing person is, but I suppose...


So yay, I guess.

cheesetriangles posted:

Are there any nukes in turkey?

Xandu posted:

Yeah but we have control over them.

Jagchosis posted:

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/754077712550068224

we will soon find out this tweet was eliot higgins's "oh poo poo gunfire"