Ardennes posted:

Granted, the question always what happens to the "loser" in a change of government, and traditionally the US doesn't brook compromises. If anything Iraq is the case example of this, specifically de-baathification.


Here is an interesting excerpt from the Human Rights Watch Report: https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-03.htm.

It is worth reading in its entirety. More exactly, the issue isn't technically intervening in the genocide, but back the RPF when it went on the offensive and continue supporting it during the Congo Wars.

farraday posted:

Yes I've read it.

The problem is of course, this is still not intervention of the type we're talking about and that leaning on the government to stop the revenge killings which as a diplomatic effort is only effectual coming from governments that already support those in power. You can't not support them and have diplomatic clout to make them listen to you. To bring it back to Libya, it is the assertion that the US should have leaned on the government of Ghaddafi to make him not carry out massacres which, from people claiming the US has an over inflated impression of it's power, it an over inflated impression of US power.

kustomkarkommando posted:

I don't think its that controversial to claim that the US broadly supported Rwanda and Uganda in the First Congo War, their withdrawal of support for the Mobutu regime and backing of Kabila snr as a part of Clinton's African Renaissance policy pretty much gave them the green light to do what they wanted.

Ardennes posted:

Well in the case of the US, we certainly didn't lean on them enough during the Congo Wars themselves and even then it took us a while to keep the revenge killing under control. The Kibeho massacre happened in April 1995, so even if the killing might have slowed it didn't necessarily stop in September either. In popular culture, the Tutsis and the RPF were broadly shown in a sympathetic light (remember Hotel Rwanda?) but the entire history of Central Africa during that time was a morass of mass murder from multiple sides including the RPF.

In the case of Libya, we had the ability to defensively intervene versus atrocities, but instead we choose regime change without nation building. What was sold as a "no fly zone" very quickly began general airstrikes to support a offensive advance. At a certain point some type of analysis needs to be done about exactly what US policy both hopes to accomplish and what it actually achieves.

quote:

In that sense, you don't have to necessary say that the blood of that period was primarily from the US but certainly the actions of the US were a pretty key competent. That said there is the broader question of is it possible period to look at the machinations of geopolitics with any objectivity? Can you critique the US without being a "authoritarian genocide apologist?"

farraday posted:

Which is fair, but you're pulling away from the claim that intervention in the Rwanda Genocide led tot he Congo wars, which is also fair since you never made that claim. Rwanda as an example of US intervention is hopeless as a position and I see no reason to engage further with US failures during the Congo wars as it is clear that Intervention can no be said to be a cause of anything there.

quote:

On Libya, I think it requires a grand simplification of the situation on the ground in Libya to claim the US had the ability to defensively intervene against atrocities. While clearly the US went well beyond defensive attacks, recall that the situation in Libya was rebels west of Tripoli on the coast, in Misrata tot he east of Tripoli, in Benghazi across the Gulf and in the South West of Tripoli among the Amazigh in the mountains. An air intervention would inherently require coverage of the entire country and could not simply be limited to strikes along a small access. It would also require extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground that isn't easily obtainable without embedding. Certainly the house to house warfare in Misrata is not something you can blithely bomb while actually aiming to accomplish anything without a very clear understanding of where everyone is on the ground.

quote:

So, I would question your claim we had the ability to defensively intervene against atrocities without wider action that favored the rebels in a one sided manner. I should note that the other side of this is that is important to remember, the rebels groups during the war and the current competing governments are not secessionist movements and as such were going to continue fighting regardless of whether they merely had defensive no fly zones provided by the US or offensive air strikes and other military support.

quote:

Maybe people should start from not being authoritarian genocide apologists and then looking for proximate actions by the US and claiming they're the key component of everything that went wrong.

Ardennes posted:

The US actively supported the RPF during this period, if you don't want to call this "intervention" but "proxy support" or some other terminology but that is fine but kind of just hand waving it away doesn't work.


Even if air-coverage was broad, no-fly zones in Iraq were over both Kurdistan and the Basra, it didn't force the hand of the US and NATO to go for regime change. It may have not been simple but to be honest we conducted an offensive air campaign during the same circumstances.


The fighting would have still happened, and US intervention would have favored the rebels but ultimately the goal would have be too deescalate the conflict. Instead we escalated it even further and then we it was our change to put the country back together again, we just left. We really didn't have a game plan beyond to bomb the poo poo of Gaddafi.


This is an often a circular argument since criticizing actions of the US is regularly used as evidence of being an "apologist" in the first place. Let's be honest this is an American based forum and there is a growing reluctance to actually engage in America policy failures. It is also why the Libya war threads has some real problems with objectivity, and often seemed like were designed to promote the type of war-porn that was popular back in 2003.

Pope Guilty posted:

D&D is really loving up if its favorite war isn't the class war

farraday posted:

Iraq was exactly the example i thought you'd use which is why I mentioned the reels are not separatist. Both groups in Iraq were inherently defensive so a defensive air zones inherently work with their objectives. using them as your exmaple gives you a biased view of their effectiveness in every situation.

quote:

Considering you're trying to glibly lump anything under intervention I will go ahead and stop giving you the courtesy of not saying you think the US intervened in the Rwanda genocide. So please defend the claim that US intervention into the Rwanda Genocide caused the Congo wars.

If you want to claim the words you choose to use don't actually matter I think everyone will be correct in not bothering to read your carelessly chosen words.

Ardennes posted:

That doesn't actually explain why it wouldn't work, or at least why offensive airstrikes were therefore necessary. There may have been mission creep, but we very clearly went for regime change nearly out of the gate. It is also why there is so much skepticism of a Syrian no-fly zone (well before the Russian intervention), there wasn't clear evidence it was going to lead to the same result.

Ardennes posted:

I actually said if you don't want to term it "intervention" I was perfectly fine with it, especially we aren't talking about the US intervening during the genocide. I quite clearly said the opposite of what your are claiming, I am not tied to the word "intervention." If you want to keep on harping about another guy talking about intervention you can, but really it is clear there is actually another argument happening here.

farraday posted:

As the rebels were not defensive themselves that means combat would move out of any protected air zones. Since the conflict was no predicated mainly on ethnic/sectarian or other distinguishable groups the threat of massacre lingered over the entire country where conflict was ongoing. Where there was significant threat of retaliatory massacres, as with the instance of confirmed ethnic cleansing by Misratans of Tawergha you are now bombing the people you were just bombing to protect which, while it does have some dark humor absolutely refrains from acknowledging the disparate effectiveness of bombing a regular army and militia forces as we have repeated evidence at hand that bombing irregular forces is ineffective at keeping them from operating.

So now it's your turn to explain how your defensive air strikes would work, because you haven't and I'm pretty sure you can't.

quote:

Yes, which means you don't care what word is used and think all of them are the same, try and keep up Ardennes.

Ardennes posted:

Combat would have moved beyond the protected airzones, but at the time of the airstrikes, Gaddafi had a mild edge and could have held defensive positions. In addition, if they left those zones then Gaddifi would have a freer hand on using his own air assets on them. The offensive nature of the airstrikes quite obviously reserved this situation, but what was the ultimate result? To be honest, it is unclear exactly how offensive airstrikes ultimately solved the issue of score settling in this case especially since the militias never disarmed and the situation was never actually resolved. I agree at a certain point you can't bomb everyone that are "doing bad things" and score settling would have still happened but an argument against defensive airstrikes isn't an argument for offensive ones. It may have been an argument against any type of intervention, but I will leave that to you.

More over if your argument is that "regime change had to happen because defensive no fly zones are too difficult to figure out" it still doesn't adequately explain the complete lack of a plan for the post-war period. Ultimately, the point isn't that defensive airstrikes didn't have problems, but as you yet to anyway advance the argument of why offensive airstrikes and chaotic regime change (Gaddafi being tortured then killed in a ditch) was preferable. You can hate Gaddafi and still think the entire result was a cluster gently caress.


You are right, I really don't care what is between you and another poster. I wouldn't use "intervention" myself to describe it but rather a patron-proxy relationship. This is really about your beef with another poster though.

Seriously though, I can tell you are just seething over it though and you are showing absolutely zero ability to debate without it becoming emotionally charged. You have been on these forums for a while, it shouldn't be this hard for you.

quote:

At least according to its HDI levels and GDP per capita, Libya was one of the most advanced Arab states.

You can't deny there was actually a expansive safety net in Libya, even if there was probably favoritism. You can't deny the guy did some stuff right, especially in regards of social spending and infrastructure at least prior to the 00s.

Gaddafi was did horrendous stuff, like Pinochet, but his focus on state spending and infrastructure wasn't his fault.

farraday posted:

You demand I provide facts while making up poo poo about how a defensive no fly zone would work because it would. Obviously Gaddafhi's lovely airforce would have been super effective just like assad's has been. Maybe he could borrow the Russian's to hlep while you gravely nodded your head about how objectively this is the best case.

Lol your lovely "why you mad bro" tactic never changes, no does the fact your only major concern with Libya was that it would ruin Ghaddafi's reputation.

quote:

gently caress off ardennes you always have been and always will be a sycophant for whatever authoritarian kleptocracy catches your eyes while bleating about your supposed objectivity.

alternate universe Tezzor posted:

It's shameful that the Western neoliberal powers allowed a popular democratic uprising against the vile authoritarian Qaddafi to flounder and be crushed. If only a multilateral humanitarian action was taken, instead of the great powers merely vacillating and sitting on their hands, this massive human crisis surely could have been averted.

It's obvious that the west sought to smother the Arab Spring in the cradle, in order to prevent instability from unseating the stable middle eastern strongmen who enable unfettered oil exploitation.

walgreenslatino posted:

walgreenslatino posted:

VitalSigns posted:

Oh Gaddafi was only going to commit city-wide massacres, well that's okay then.

CharlestheHammer posted:

It was a war, trials and such are hard as gently caress to do when you fighting. I mean sometimes it works out but most the time it won't and you just have to accept that. You can also just wallow in your unrealistic fantasies tho, if you really want too.

Effectronica posted:

I'm glad we've got two people who like to downplay genocides. "The battle of the Little Big Horn is basically identical to the Indian School system."

Ardennes posted:

Wait so it is a unrealistic fantasy that the US could have adopted a different strategy than it did? Moreover, even if you say that there could be other solution, there is the whole other issue of what happened in Libya when the dust settled. Libya has been crumbling for years and there doesn't seem to be a clear plan at this point to put it back together.

walgreenslatino posted:

CharlestheHammer posted:

As far as I know, intervention is still viewed rather positively in Libya. You could be talking about other countries I guess, but who cares what they think.

Bip Roberts posted:

How is Libya somehow purely an US operation in people's memory?

CharlestheHammer posted:

Well if you have any proof post it, instead of the always lame common sense argument.

Tezzor posted:

I don't accept the default assumption of liberal warmongers that people love being bombed by foreign powers with disastrous results until it's proven otherwise. Call that "common sense" if you must.

CharlestheHammer posted:

Lol I didn't think you did.

Tezzor posted:

It's funny how warmongering liberals literally cannot understand opposition to their ceaseless incompetent stumbling around the world murdering anyone nearby a person they think might not like us, except that what those of us in opposition to so-called Liberal Humanitarian War really hate isn't the unending counterproductive blood-drenched idiocy of their catastrophically failed policy, or the hypocrisy, lack of consequences and goldfish-memory self-righteousness of its advocates. No, the opposition is just contrarian, and if we weren't rampaging around the world like a vastly stupid, but also vaguely malevolent, swelling corpse-golem, those drat guys who claim to dislike aggressive war would be complaining about that.

Tezzor posted:

I don't accept the default assumption of liberal warmongers that people love being bombed by foreign powers with disastrous results until it's proven otherwise. Call that "common sense" if you must.

walgreenslatino posted:

which killed approximately 60 civilians over the course of 14,000 strike missions

Tezzor posted:

I don't accept the default assumption of liberal warmongers that people love being bombed by foreign powers with disastrous results until it's proven otherwise. Call that "common sense" if you must.

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Tezzor, if (hypothetically) someone were able to actually prove beyond doubt that a strong majority of the Libyan people did support the foreign military intervention, and continue to think it was the right course of action... would that even really matter? I mean seriously. You're gonna let one society set such a terrible precedent for the terms of acceptable international conduct for other peoples just because they really, really didn't like their local authority? That would be pretty hosed up.

Tezzor posted:

It's funny how warmongering liberals literally cannot understand opposition to their ceaseless incompetent stumbling around the world murdering anyone nearby a person they think might not like us, except that what those of us in opposition to so-called Liberal Humanitarian War really hate isn't the unending counterproductive blood-drenched idiocy of their catastrophically failed policy, or the hypocrisy, lack of consequences and goldfish-memory self-righteousness of its advocates. No, the opposition is just contrarian, and if we weren't rampaging around the world like a vastly stupid, but also vaguely malevolent, swelling corpse-golem, those drat guys who claim to dislike aggressive war would be complaining about that.

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Tezzor, if (hypothetically) someone were able to actually prove beyond doubt that a strong majority of the Libyan people did support the foreign military intervention, and continue to think it was the right course of action... would that even really matter? I mean seriously. You're gonna let one society set such a terrible precedent for the terms of acceptable international conduct for other peoples just because they really, really didn't like their local authority? That would be pretty hosed up.

Typo posted:

Nobody in D&D would be complaining about regime change in Libya if said regime portrayed itself as a right-wing regime rather than one portraying itself as a left-wing regime.

It comes down to the fact that internet leftists are very tolerant of murderous dictators as long as they praise Socialism enough and cries enough about imperialism.

Ytlaya posted:

While I understand your point, I think it would be more useful to look at public opinion a longer time after the fact. It seems like a pretty large portion of a country, if not a majority, is going to support regime change in any country with a sufficiently lovely status quo, regardless of whether the change is an improvement or not. Even if people are objectively worse off a year or two after a regime change (not saying that's the case here), there's a good chance they'd still have an irrational sense of hope just because there's a non-zero chance of a positive outcome. As more time passes, the people will have a much better sense of whether the regime change was really an improvement.

Tezzor posted:

Ah yes, the "you love Saddam" argument, except the interchangeable teams switched sides in the interim so for the moment liberals unironically advocate it instead of crying about how it's unfair.