Reply With Quote
Do I need to remind you what happens most the time we have helped oust a dictator? That the replacement was worse...
Can anyone guarantee me that Libya will be better of with someone else at the helm? If not better, then what was paid for in blood?
Especially since Libya has so much.
Do I need to remind you what happens most the time we have helped oust a dictator? That the replacement was worse...
Can anyone guarantee me that Libya will be better of with someone else at the helm? If not better, then what was paid for in blood?
Agreed, but the same holds true with removing Saddam, right? But you thought that it was worth it in that case.
Probably won't be better. Unless you believe in the whole "spreading democracy" thing.
Not at all. Things were a whole lot better before Saddam took power. Iraqis my age and older remember that, and enough will attempt for a better society there that I think it's going to happen. Libya is different. Gaddafi took power 10 years before Saddam did and the nation was split then. It would take people in their mid 60's and older to remember a Libya before Gaddafi. He has made Libya a better place even though he is a dictator. Saddam made Iraq a worse place.
I believe it is possible for Iraq because of their past history and start of westernization before Saddam. I think it is next to impossible for Libya until the nation grows more in trade with other nations and is more open to tourism and other cultures.
We can't wave a magic wand and make entire cultures change. War is not the way to change society, except as a last resort.
I suppose that depends on one's moral perspective.
If you see a neighbor beating his kids head against the pavement and you don't have the capability of calling the police, do you feel obliged to step in?
Or do you simply say "well, the kid might end up with someone just as bad or worse" and stand there?
To step in or not step in, as Manny noted, is a complicated calculus.
The French could have made a similar argument about helping the rebels in 1774-7
"We don't want to help them because it will make the fighting worse".
At some point, if people are willing to die for the rightfulness of their cause, and their cause is fighting against such obvious evil, what does it say about you when you just stand by?
We are constrained in both Yemen and Bahrain, but not so much in Libya, where we have a clearer hand, especially with the Europeans taking the lead insofar as a lot of actions and steps to support the rebels.
I don't think we can or should do everything, but that definitely is not a valid argument for never doing anything.
And what does that solve, except for the moment?
It's been known to happen.
Agreed, but there are so many countries worse. For the reasons given to be the only ones... The line in the sane we would be drawing would have us attacking at least 1/3rd of the world. I say it's the wrong line to draw.
Different time and place. Different reasons.
They believe it's righteous. Do you? The only internal political enemies our state mentions against Gaddafi, are "more conservative Muslims." You think Gaddafi is bad, just wait until they take charge.
I would rather have a leader as a president, not a follower.
Well, I hope those of you who disagree with me are right. I do ever so much hope I'm wrong. I fear the future history will prove me right though.
Mature political operators learn how to be pliable.
Agreed, but by removing Saddam, we've made an even worse place, where terrorism can take hold without a strong executive to take charge. Would you agree? Do you think Iraq is better, now, than it was while Saddam was in charge?
I already said I think Iraq will become a better nation. Terrorists already had training grounds there. It's less likely they will now.
No, actually, they didn't, although it doesn't surprise me you got suckered by that lie, and continue to believe it.
Secular totalitarian police states don't allow religious fanatics to train on military tactics and weapons on their soil.
If you want to back up this claim you will have a hard row to hoe.
Sucker."The story of Saddam training foreign fighters to hijack airplanes was instrumental in building the case to invade Iraq," a detailed report in the March-April issue says. "But it turns out that the Iraqi general who told the story to the New York Times and 'Frontline' was a complete fake a low-ranking former soldier whom Ahmed Chalabi's aides had coached to deceive the media."
Pawlenty Explains How To Cook Up Vital National Interests After A War Has Started
In Libya, once the President of the United States says [Libyan president Muammar] Qaddafi must go, he has to go. You can’t let a third rate dictator thumb his nose at the President of the United States in the free world. Keeping him there indefinitely is not an option.
And now, some would argue whether we had a vital interests initially, we have one now, which is you can’t leave Qaddafi sitting there because if he were to survive and reestablish any capability at all, I would guess one of his main motivations is going to be retaliation and guess who it’s going to be against? And so Qaddafi must now go.
In other words, Pawlenty laid out two ways that a vital national security interest can be created out of thin air:
If the President says something must be done, and it does not get done, then getting it done becomes a vital national security interest because the President cannot be embarrassed in this way.
If the President attacks someone who is not a national security threat, then killing, capturing or removing that person from office becomes a vital national security interest because, like a bee hive you’ve swatted with a stick, that person might come after you for attacking them.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...nterest-libya/
So you think it justifiable to incite a civil war/civil unrest and chaos in the short-term in Iraq, because you believe their chances of becoming a better nation afterwards are more likely than Libya becoming a better nation?
My God.
You guys are amazing.
You are able to assume you can take one of a dozen reasons, nullify a single reason, and nullify the whole experience.
LnGrrrR...
That is only one of many variables considered.
How many are there in Libya?
Random, ever consider your article is a lie?
Funny thing is that the man (forget his name) who was instrumental in convincing people to attack Gaddafi's leadership is the man who would most likely take his place! I do believe what Chalabi said. There was collaborating evidence. there isn't any collaborating evidence for the allegations against Gaddafi.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-02-2011 at 11:55 PM.
WC, ever consider your article is a lie?
Since NATO ‘took over’ Libya operation, U.S. has flown 3,475 sorties
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...-3475-sorties/
Kinetic action.
Solipsism thy name is WC.
Back to the Human Growth Index. Libya has been doing well for Human development. Too good to justify these actions without some more serious reasons i would say.
Does anyone think it will retain it's rank at #53? Who thinks the revolution will provide a better quality of life there, and get a better rating?
I say the civil war will reduce the HGI for the nation for several years to come, and it might not ever recover.
They were #52 in '08, so they're already declining.
Please elaborate on your thoughts that a civil war would drop them in that cherry picked ranking, why would anyone care, and especially your contention that they might never recover...
Last edited by ElNono; 07-03-2011 at 12:31 AM.
You are wrong about them dropping. Are you being intellectually dishonest, or are you ignorant to the facts? Their index did not decrease from 2008 to 2010. Someone else simply gained more than they did, and inched past them.
Yes, my contention is the civil war will reduce their HDI value. You can disagree with me all you want. We will see in the future.
Didn't they tell us they were enforcing a no fly for Libyan aircraft? How is taking out air defense accomplishing that?
The PDF do ent you posted earlier says they were ranked #52 in 2008. Cherry picking data is easy.
I asked you to elaborate on your contention, but I see you have no intentions in doing so. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to show the rationale by which you reached your conclusion.
lol intellectually dishonest
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
