Ghadaffi, I suppose. Who's left?
Libya VIII
Tue, 2011-03-22 22:14
#102
Tue, 2011-03-22 22:30
#103
Gaddafi, Moral Interventionism, Libya and the Arab Revolutionary Movement - by Richard Falk
http://www.zcommunications.org/gaddafi-moral-interventionism-libya-and-t...
"It would seem highly likely that a rebel victory would benefit the people of Libya and would be a step in the right direction for the region, especially the Arab world, but does this entail supporting Western-led military intervention even if it is backed by the United Nations? I think not...
If ordinary citizens were allowed to have foreign policy doctrines, mine would be this: without reasonable levels of certainty, states should never engage in violent action that kills people. And if this cautionary principle is ignored, governments should expect that their behavior would be widely viewed as a species of international criminality.."
Tue, 2011-03-22 22:35
#104
Could you expand on your "Reasonable Level of Certainty" standard?
Tue, 2011-03-22 23:42
#105
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.
For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:02
#106
Bombing Libya: 1986-2011 - by Thomas C Moutain
http://www.countercurrents.org/mountain220311.htm
"First, some history. In 1969 when Col Gaddafi came to power by overthrowing the Libyan king in a military coup, Libyans were one of the poorest people in the world with an annual per capita income of less than $60. Today, thanks to the 'Arab socialism' policy of the government as well as bountiful petroleum exports, the Libyan people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world.
Most Libyan families own their own home and most Libyan families own an automobile. The free public health system in Libya is one of the best in the Arab world and Libya's free education system up to the graduate level is as good if not better than any other in the region. So the question is, why has a revolt broken out...?"
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:04
#107
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
I'd like to point out again no confirmed deaths.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:08
#108
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.
If states have a right to kill those they govern in order to remain in power,
Then the people have a corresponding right to defend themselves which, of necessity, means they have a right to overthrow the state.
There is no pre-exisiting moral or legal imperative for foreign states to militarily interfere in the affairs of other states.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:15
#109
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:28
#110
fallout
As a libertarian I would remind you and all that the basic workings of a state has it that it is the monopolizer of violence, that was why I lulzed, foreign venturing is just an offshoot, believe me I appose what the anti imperialist oppose but I don't have their stupid manichean analysis that puts particular states as focal points of good and evil, I also think that might makes right, this has been drowned out in our christian epoch but its as true now as it was when band overwhelmed band in the violent pre-figurations of the state. Russia btw would not be a state today had the revolution gone my way which it nearly did early in C20.
States already exist, the best way way to deal with the fallout it to look for the most preferable scenerios possible short of destroying the state altogether, I don't understand how people can get so up in arms about the whole libya intervention, sure there are interests they always are, but for fucks sake look at everyday practicalities on the ground in that area and what a leveling of the playing field might bring about, if in the end you have a return to a more dencentralized territory run on more pre-colonial lines then it will have been a preferable result regardless of interests, hell benghazi right now has a fairly egalitarian strucure in terms of governence will it last, who knows.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:30
#111
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
Because Medvedev/Putin has broad support across Russia.
Because when an enemy is able to shoot down planes, launch ICBMs, etc. more people die.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:32
#112
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
What if there were people like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab]this guy[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamil_Basayev]this guy[/url] who were trained by certain intelligence agencies in the black art of terrorism in training camps for terror in Afghanistan during the 1980s and 90s? What if they went into places like Dagestan, and Russia where they orchestrated the kidnapping of civilians, car bombings and even taking people hostage in places like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis]Beslan, N. Ossetia[/url] and ended up murdering more than 300 people and more than 150 of them children? Means?
I think those two guys, "al-Qaeda", and the CIA and British SAS were working very hard to bring about instability and chaos in Chechnya at the the heart of what is estimated to be a vast basin of oil in Central Asia. When we talk about freedom, and when corporate driven military interests talk about freedom, I don't believe we are talking about the same things exactly.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:33
#113
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
Because Medvedev/Putin has broad support across Russia.
Because when an enemy is able to shoot down planes, launch ICBMs, etc. more people die.
Exactly, so our interest in helping others is limited by our fear of reprisal. Doesn't sound very heroic.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:48
#114
All right and interest is based on might, there has never been any other ordering of things
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:50
#115
They did the same things during the cold war era in places like Hungary. Western radio stations pumped in oodles of propaganda to incite uprisings in cities like Budapest where pro fascist groups were lurking among the population and had collaborated with the enemy in the 1940s. The propaganda worked to cause those same groups to rise up against pro Soviet governments. The only problem was that the NATO gang were unwilling to assist them militarily and were typically abandoned to their own devices after uprisings and terrorists were stomped on by the Sovs.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:51
#116
As a libertarian I would remind you and all that the basic workings of a state has it that it is the monopolizer of violence, that was why I lulzed, foreign venturing is just an offshoot,... I also think that might makes right,...
I too am a (civil) libertarian.
But I disagree with every word you wrote in this post.
To argue "This is the way of the world, and therefore this is the way it ought to be.",
is false.
It is known as the "Is to ought" fallacy.
Even though this is the way some powerful states and state leaders act and have acted, this does not make such behavior right.
Might does not make right.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:51
#117
'Operation Odyssey Dawn' Breaking For Washington - by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/article168980.html
"The French strikes against Libya are not a French operation, but a sub-contracting component of Odyssey Dawn Operation under the authority of US Africom. Their objective is not to rescue Libyan civilians but to serve as a pretext to pave the way for the landing of US forces on the Black continent..."
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:52
#118
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
Because Medvedev/Putin has broad support across Russia.
Because when an enemy is able to shoot down planes, launch ICBMs, etc. more people die.
Exactly, so our interest in helping others is limited by our fear of reprisal. Doesn't sound very heroic.
Well, if you really want to play it out ...
Any mission to militarily aid Chechnyans would invariably be an abject failure.
Ignoring nuclear capabilities that can pound the western world into glass
Ignoring the fact we probably trigger World War III
Ignoring the fact the above two send would likely send human life to a quick demise.
Intervening forces would never even move towards establishing air superiority in the region, and the war on Chechnyans would likely escalate.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:52
#119
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
What if there were people like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab]this guy[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamil_Basayev]this guy[/url] who were trained by certain intelligence agencies in the black art of terrorism in training camps for terror in Afghanistan during the 1980s and 90s? What if they went into places like Dagestan, and Russia where they orchestrated the kidnapping of civilians, car bombings and even taking people hostage in places like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis]Beslan, N. Ossetia[/url] and ended up murdering more than 300 people and more than 150 of them children? Means?
I think those two guys, "al-Qaeda", and the CIA and British SAS were working very hard to bring about instability and chaos in Chechnya at the the heart of what is estimated to be a vast basin of oil in Central Asia. When we talk about freedom, and when corporate driven military interests talk about freedom, I don't believe we are talking about the same things exactly.
I'm not gonna pretend to understand the depth of your statement, Fidel, but I am talking about and was refering to when STATE aggression was justified. IMO it should only be for self or allied defence. Defence, not pre-emptive attacks. Defence. But apparently, I do not understand the "real world" that nessesitates state murder. So the CIA has it's hand in Chechnya, no surprise. Have civilians been killed by Russia in Chechnya? Then why do we not bomb Moscow?
Point is is we only seem to be willing to march triumphantly to defeat those who cannot strike back at us. So it's all a little old right now. Libya today, Syria tommorrow, but we only help those who has an antagonist we can defeat.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:55
#120
Exactly, so our interest in helping others is limited by our fear of reprisal. Doesn't sound very heroic.
States interfering economically, politically and militarily in the affairs of other countries is based on fear, greed and the lust for power.
Indeed, not very heroic.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:57
#121
Bec.De.Corbin
I still have not seen or heard anything about giving the rebels the weapons and supplies they really need to fight back in any reasonable manner. And I'm talking ANYBODY... not just the west or NATO.
They're getting the wrong fucking "help". Artillery and tanks are killing them just as much as before the stupid no fly zone went up... they need light and medium anti-tank missile systems and some light weight artillery they can use on their own.
Wed, 2011-03-23 00:59
#122
I got that same sense watching CBC News with Mark Kelly last night. He kept asking people the same question worded differently over and over: What now? Can "our objectives" be achieved by no-fly policy alone? How long will it take to achieve "our objectives"?, he kept asking people. And ordinary Canadians didn't give them the correct answers. Canadians on the street in Toronto and Montreal repeatedly said that ground troops are not the answer to protecting innocent people in Libya. Apparently the results of US-led quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan have not impressed very many people.
Wed, 2011-03-23 01:02
#123
states should never engage in violent action that kills people.For those who no the basic logic of the state this comment is just pure lulz
What is the logic? That states need to engage in murderous acts to further the interests of society as a whole? The end does not justify the means, especially when the means doesn't affect you except at the pumps. What, we need to grow up and accept certain realities? How about this, Russia has long since bombed and murdered the people of Chechnya. I propose we act on behalf of the Chechyns and commence bombing Moscow. Why do we never pick a fight with someone who can fight back?
Because Medvedev/Putin has broad support across Russia.
Because when an enemy is able to shoot down planes, launch ICBMs, etc. more people die.
Exactly, so our interest in helping others is limited by our fear of reprisal. Doesn't sound very heroic.
Well, if you really want to play it out ...
Any mission to militarily aid Chechnyans would invariably be an abject failure.
Ignoring nuclear capabilities that can pound the western world into glass
Ignoring the fact we probably trigger World War III
Ignoring the fact the above two send would likely send human life to a quick demise.
Intervening forces would never even move towards establishing air superiority in the region, and the war on Chechnyans would likely escalate.
Thank you CNN. I thought I could manage to get away from the hyperbolic fear mongering here, but I guess not. I was only using Chechnya as an example, in case you didn't notice. Point is no matter how agregious the atrocity commited by a state, the U.S. et al will not come to your aid unless they are assured victory.
Wed, 2011-03-23 01:06
#124
The Americans have said Gadaffi has to go. John McCain says the US Military should be in there training Libyan rebs in weapons use and arming them. Isn't this what they did when training and arming the mujahideen which have since "morphed" into the Taliban and "al-Qa'eda"? Perhaps they want to transplant a few thousand mujahideen and "al-Qaeda" into Libya, like they did with Bosnia in the 1990s. All hell breaks loose, and then the "humanitarian" aspect of it comes into play even more.
Wed, 2011-03-23 01:08
#125
IMO it should only be for self or allied defence.
Libya threatens the U.S.A. how?
Where's the defense argument for what American, British, French and Canadian warships and fighter-attack aircraft are doing to the Libyan people (ALL Libyan people, regardless whose "side", if any, they are on)?
What treaty or agreement have the (Libyan) Libertarias signed/ratified with the U.S.A. (or any other country) that makes them our "allies"?
Wed, 2011-03-23 01:11
#126
All right and interest is based on might, there has never been any other ordering of things
Not true.
Look at laws (either at the national or international level) that affirm and protect human rights
and those whose purpose are to make illegal and eliminate war itself and all the related crimes of war.
Wed, 2011-03-23 01:14
#127
IMO it should only be for self or allied defence.
Libya threatens the U.S.A. how?
Where's the defense argument for what American, British, French and Canadian warships and fighter-attack aircraft are doing to the Libyan people (ALL Libyan people, regardless whose "side", if any, they are on)?
What treaty or agreement have the (Libyan) Libertarias signed/ratified with the U.S.A. (or any other country) that makes them our "allies"?
Umm, not sure if you misread my posts but I am in agreement with what you just said. Just to reiterate, I believe a military action should only be used for self or allied defence. So, since Libya is not threatening us our our allies I do not feel military action is justified. Period.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3