Thread: 'Victory' in Tripoli, Libya. A big lie?

Originally Posted by Seraph

I apologize. I keep reading pro-intervention comments. I cannot comprehend how people can be pro-intervention, and ignore or dismiss the civilian casualties.

My logic may (or maybe not) be faulty, but my position is clear. I am completely against intervention, and completely against the civilian casualties. I am not embarrassed about my position at all, nor will I apologize for it.

OK, let me illustrate my objection to your hysterical reasoning by just firing your own words back at you:

Originally Posted by A Hypothetical Anti-Seraph

I keep reading anti-intervention comments. I cannot comprehend how people can be anti-intervention, and ignore or dismiss the civilian casualties.

My logic may (or maybe not) be faulty, but my position is clear. I am completely in favour of intervention, and completely against the civilian casualties. I am not embarrassed about my position at all, nor will I apologize for it.

See, it's perfectly possible to be in favour of intervention for exactly the same reasons you claim to oppose it, and just as possible to state that position in completely idiotic terms by implying that anyone who disagrees with you is in favour of civilian casualties.

The fact is that there was already fighting in Libya before NATO started bombing Gadaffi's forces; there were already and would have continued to be many civilian casualties. The question was whether intervention would minimise the number, or cause even more. It's perfectly acceptable to conclude that intervention would be worse than letting the nascent civil war run its course and to oppose it on those grounds, but it's not acceptable to pretend that only intervention would have resulted in innocent deaths and therefore assert that anyone who supported it was happy about that and only supported the intervention out of grubby self-interest, which is essentially what you're doing.

You need to read more declassified documents from the CIA.

Why? Just because the US wanted rid of Gadaffi and made lots of plans to do so (you hardly need CIA documents to know that) it does not follow that they instigated or even manipulated the current uprising against him. Just because humanitarian concerns were a pretext to do what they wanted to do anyway it does not follow that those concerns weren't real, or valid.

Sure, it's possible that the US has been behind this from the start, but it's also possible (and I would say a hell of a lot more plausible) that they have simply taken advantage of a situation that developed organically.

Either you are for what is going or you are against it. Other possibilities might exist. Why not state your actual position? I have.

You are George Bush and I claim my £5.

OK, since you asked, I was against the intervention. I felt that the humanitarian case was weak, the objectives too vague, and the potential danger of making things even worse too great. You can cry me a river for the end of Gadaffi's rule though. Seeing him swing from a lamp post will be the one unambiguous good to come out of this, even if everything else is a disaster.

It's too early to tell whether or not I was correct, but so far I'm happy to admit it's gone much better than I feared it would. So far. I still think it's more likely to end in tears than not.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

...

Show me the highest moral ground to stand on, point me the way.

“See, it's perfectly possible to be in favour of intervention for exactly the same reasons you claim to oppose it, … …only supported the intervention out of grubby self-interest, which is essentially what you're doing.” No I do not agree it is possible to be in favour of intervention by anti-parallel reasoning, or the converse, or reductio ad absurdum or any of those kinds of things. No, it is not essentially what I’m doing. I am against intervention because of the real death, injury, damage and destruction caused by Nato. Intervention has been argued about for a long time in many other cases. One of the problems is something like the idea of turn-about is fair play. Every one objects to intervention being done to them in their own country. It is hypocrisy to assert acceptability for intervention in other’s conflicts, but deny it’s applicability to one’s own country in parallel circumstances. I’m not hysterical, nor febrile. Intervention is an extremely dangerous precedent.
“”You need to read more declassified documents from the CIA.””
“Why?” Because what has been done and planned in the past shows that I’m not being febrile. Off the mark perhaps, we’ll see, but not febrile.

Until we get the full story, I remained unconvinced. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26255
And from China: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7584150.html
Some reads from Pepe Escobar: http://atimes.com/atimes/others/Pepe2011.html

that means having American war ships cruising around in the Baltic Sea

It is better than Russian tanks cruising around in Latvian cities
Like in Georgia in 2008 and now :P

Originally Posted by nulle

It is better than Russian tanks cruising around in Latvian cities
Like in Georgia in 2008 and now :P

Say that to Serbians or Lybians.

Originally Posted by Seraph

No I do not agree it is possible to be in favour of intervention by anti-parallel reasoning, or the converse, or reductio ad absurdum or any of those kinds of things.

Wait, let me get this clear. You don't believe it's possible for humanitarian concerns to be a motivation for supporting intervention? Is that really what you're saying?

No, it is not essentially what I’m doing.

That's exactly what your doing, as your quote above so ably demonsrates.

I am against intervention because of the real death, injury, damage and destruction caused by Nato.

Right, but by your own simplistic logic that means you are in favour of the real death, injury, damage and destruction that would have been caused by Gadaffi putting down the uprising in the absence of an intervention.

Of course you're not really in favour those things, we both know that, but that is the mirror image of the accusation you keep making against your opponents.

I tell you what I think. I think you don't really give a hoot for the poor Libyans. I think you're crying crocodile tears for them as a justification for opposing something you would have opposed anyway, no matter the circumstances, simply because you hate NATO. I think your opposition to the intervention is cynical, opportunistic and immoral.

How do you like them apples?

Intervention has been argued about for a long time in many other cases. One of the problems is something like the idea of turn-about is fair play. Every one objects to intervention being done to them in their own country.

No, everyone doesn't object. Those who lose something from intervention object, those who gain something rather like it. The South Ossetians didn't object to Russian intervention in Georgia. The Kosovan Albanians didn't object to NATO intervention in Serbia. The American revolutionaries didn't object to French intervention in the War of Independence. The anti-Gadaffi Libyans don't object to the current intervention.

It is hypocrisy to assert acceptability for intervention in other’s conflicts, but deny it’s applicability to one’s own country in parallel circumstances. I’m not hysterical, nor febrile. Intervention is an extremely dangerous precedent.

I totally agree that it's dangerous. But so is civil war.

No, I don't agree, and no that is not essentially what I'm doing. National sovereignty includes the right to self determination. I would agree that the world is a complicated place and bad things happen. False dilemmas convince me of nothing. We simply are not going to see eye to eye on this. The more I read about this the less convinced I am. Labeling me isn't gong to convince me.

As a matter of fact I don't hate Nato, because it has a real function with respect to mutual defense. Complications arise about the perceptions of threat. Possibly our disagreement has something to do with the grey area where border conflicts threaten Nato countries. Some regional conflicts could escalate and threaten Nato countries. More distant conflicts would have a somewhat different burden of proof as to the possible dangers to Nato countries. Balkan conflicts would seem to be somewhat different in this respect than African conflicts. The Balkan conflict was handled very poorly, with a significant bias that will cause a stink for a long time to come. A major problem in intervention is the balance of taking sides. This has clearly occurred in Libya, as the rebels were incompetent without Nato. Nato has done a lot of heavy lifting for the rebels. There is a significant difference between simply separating combatants, and actually supporting the successful campaign of one side. This will cause a stink for a long time to come. I myself cannot take sides, it is completely their business. I believe impartiality is highly moral. The intervention was not conducted impartially. If Nato simply separated the combatants, I would disagree less, but it doesn't seem that there was any real threat to Nato countries. I simply do not believe in violation of other nation's sovereignty. Every nation has the right to quell rebellions. And then there is the quagmire afterward.

National sovereignty includes the right to self determination.

And people who live under dictatorships do not have that right.

serious topics like this one

Originally Posted by nulle

And people who live under dictatorships do not have that right.

Do you know what equivocation means? Or the fault of composition? The majority of Americans were against bailouts of Wall street banks. They had no say. The majority of Americans are against other things as well, but have no say. Go to Chicago or New York or any other city in America and try to effect democratic change, or even of the nation as a whole. You will find out you will not be able to change anything. The right of a nation to self determination is not the same as personal rights. People who live under various different kinds of political systems besides dictatorships similarly have essentially no ability to effect political change in their respective countries.