|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 17, 2011 23:07:59 GMT -5
And you really haven't addressed most of my points. Which points? |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 17, 2011 23:11:47 GMT -5
And I believe you missed my point. "Human rights" seems like an excuse given how many other places have had issues and continue to have issues that the UN, Nato and every other government tend to ignore. If Lybia is such a hot button that warrants military action by outside countries, why didn't they do the same before to other countries in the same situation? By that logic we can never do anything to help anyone unless we help everyone. We don't have the money or the manpower to do that and even if we did it wouldn't take lone before we were accused of imperialism. The ugly truth of the matter is that the Lybians have something we want and so it is in our interest to help. It's not that human rights is an excuse so much as it is a case of this particular group of humans are kind of important to us so we will do something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 17, 2011 23:12:01 GMT -5
I'll admit, I'm something of an idealist. And I think that's just fine. Just because I know the ideal can't be reached doesn't mean I shouldn't stop reaching or pushing for it. I DO believe in helping your neighbor, whether it's the person next door or the person next country, and that it's highly important. Because communities that help each other are communities that THRIVE.
I guess you could say it's an instinctive prerogative of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 17, 2011 23:23:58 GMT -5
Indeed, it shouldn't be up to NATO to decide which government is allowed to reign in Libya. The installation of western-sponsored governments often backfires -- we've seen it before, and it would be foolish to suggest that there's no risk of it happening again. This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about foreign powers getting too involved in this.
That being said, shielding Libyan citizens from the regime's troops isn't the same thing as actively getting involved in the potential overthrow via offensive measures. One could easily turn into the other (hence my trepidation), but the point is that there IS a difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jul 17, 2011 23:25:38 GMT -5
And you really haven't addressed most of my points. You aren't making points. You're bludgeoning us over the head with your opinion, expecting us to parrot in with it. We aren't exactly the sort of people that do that. Stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 17, 2011 23:57:15 GMT -5
And I believe you missed my point. "Human rights" seems like an excuse given how many other places have had issues and continue to have issues that the UN, Nato and every other government tend to ignore. If Lybia is such a hot button that warrants military action by outside countries, why didn't they do the same before to other countries in the same situation? By that logic we can never do anything to help anyone unless we help everyone. We don't have the money or the manpower to do that and even if we did it wouldn't take lone before we were accused of imperialism. The ugly truth of the matter is that the Lybians have something we want and so it is in our interest to help. It's not that human rights is an excuse so much as it is a case of this particular group of humans are kind of important to us so we will do something about it. Yes, but i wasn't making an argument for not helping. I was making an argument that the excuse of "human rights" is a particularly poor justification for us to be there. |
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 18, 2011 8:18:06 GMT -5
Why should we get involved if our interests are not at stake, when we have a shitload of problems at home do deal with? We have an ever increasing debt, why should we get involved in Libya to help al-Qaeda and other Islamist against a dictator that poses no threat to us?
|
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 18, 2011 8:19:43 GMT -5
And BTW we are deciding for the Libyans by only bombing Gaddafi, and not the rebels.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 18, 2011 8:38:40 GMT -5
Indeed, it shouldn't be up to NATO to decide which government is allowed to reign in Libya. The installation of western-sponsored governments often backfires -- we've seen it before, and it would be foolish to suggest that there's no risk of it happening again. This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about foreign powers getting too involved in this. That being said, shielding Libyan citizens from the regime's troops isn't the same thing as actively getting involved in the potential overthrow via offensive measures. One could easily turn into the other (hence my trepidation), but the point is that there IS a difference between the two. I think nothing good can come of assisting in the toppling of the sovereign head of state. Yeah, Ghaddafti is 9 colours of fucked up, however, he is the recognised head of state of a sovereign nation, and the rebels are, well, rebels. I offer, for your consideration, the reaction of the average citizen of a NATO signatory country were the Libyans to commence bombing in support of those countries' rebels or insurgents in their own countries. I also find the "we have to help because injustice!" rhetoric disgusting. Now, it is certainly fine to assit other countries, even militarily, because it serves one's own self interest. But trying to dress it up in terms of "saving freedom" or "fighting tyranny" or any other similar bullshit, while happily ignoring worse excesses in Sudan or Rwanda, f'rinstance, is hypocrissy of the first order [/2c] |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 18, 2011 13:35:03 GMT -5
I'm not denying that there's hypocrisy involved, nor am I suggesting that this entire campaign is simply about human rights -- like I've said a billion times, these are among the myriad factors that leave me very skeptical about our involvement. What I am saying is that it's not inherently wrong to protect a foreign nation's citizens from a corrupt ruler, even if said ruler isn't an immediate threat to your own nation.
I share your disgust at the lack of attention being paid to atrocities in other nations. That's rather my point, in fact -- the world shouldn't shrug and look the other way when any group of people is being mistreated. That doesn't mean that we should start bombing every country that mistreats its citizens -- military action shouldn't be the default answer to all of the world's problems -- but we can't ignore it and stop caring, either. "I've got mine" is a lousy way of looking at things, and "it doesn't affect us" isn't a good enough reason, on its own, to stay out of something.
Long story short, I'm taking issue with her mentality, not her opposition to the mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 19, 2011 7:59:11 GMT -5
I'm not denying that there's hypocrisy involved, nor am I suggesting that this entire campaign is simply about human rights -- like I've said a billion times, these are among the myriad factors that leave me very skeptical about our involvement. What I am saying is that it's not inherently wrong to protect a foreign nation's citizens from a corrupt ruler, even if said ruler isn't an immediate threat to your own nation. I share your disgust at the lack of attention being paid to atrocities in other nations. That's rather my point, in fact -- the world shouldn't shrug and look the other way when any group of people is being mistreated. That doesn't mean that we should start bombing every country that mistreats its citizens -- military action shouldn't be the default answer to all of the world's problems -- but we can't ignore it and stop caring, either. "I've got mine" is a lousy way of looking at things, and "it doesn't affect us" isn't a good enough reason, on its own, to stay out of something. Long story short, I'm taking issue with her mentality, not her opposition to the mission. As usual, you and I are in about 87.3% agreement  |
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 19, 2011 11:06:24 GMT -5
My reply is that since we are not angels, we cannot judge other nations. I think that it's hard to condemn Gaddafi when we would probably do the same thing in his situation as would every other country on earth. And he has done some good for Libya, under him literacy and GDP per capita were the highest on the continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jul 19, 2011 11:50:51 GMT -5
My reply is that since we are not angels, we cannot judge other nations. I think that it's hard to condemn Gaddafi when we would probably do the same thing in his situation as would every other country on earth. And he has done some good for Libya, under him literacy and GDP per capita were the highest on the continent. So you're saying the US Government would order their military to kill civillians if they raised major objections to the way things are being run? Have you seen the protests in the US regarding war, President Bush and President Obama? No airstrikes, no fire teams, nothing CLOSE to what Gaddafi has been doing. Dude, are you high? |
|
|
|
Post by linuxianilmurov on Jul 19, 2011 12:01:12 GMT -5
And those protests are nothing compared to what has happened in the US. There have not been massive protests in the street to overthrow the government. To compare what has happened here and there is ridiculous. Are you high?
|
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jul 19, 2011 12:04:22 GMT -5
My reply is that since we are not angels, we cannot judge other nations. It don't think anyone here claims us to be the perfect nation. It doesn't invalidate the fact that some are worse then us. We already have protests. It hasn't gone anywhere nearly as badly as Libya. North Korea's literacy is near 100%. Doesn't mean much when the people's rights are destroyed. |
|
