Libyans protest, Gadhafi orders troops to open fire

[El Barto]

We have an obligation to ourselves to not be animals.   Occasionally we're compelled to act like humans.  Annoying thought it may be, it's important.

[Progmetty]

We're launching missiles at Libyan air defenses.  Good times.  I like how war with other countries is cool again now that Bush is gone.

Yeah this is not gonna fit into the usual "Obama is as bad as Bush" monthly DTF edition, for the first time in forever the world and the especially the Arab countries sees the U.S military interfering in a problem that has nothing to do with a special U.S or Israeli interest.
This is a rescue mission and everyone here regards it as so, the human side to it is overwhelming due to the kind of brutality Kaddafi is inflecting/going to inflect on his people once he successfully brings down the revolution.

[ack44]

for the first time in forever the world and the especially the Arab countries sees the U.S military interfering in a problem that has nothing to do with a special U.S or Israeli interest.

Except Russia, they don't seem to appreciate this Western coalition.

[Progmetty]

In mother Russia, Western coalition appreciates you.
sorry, I just really felt like it so bad heh

[AndyDT]

What happens if the Iranian or Chinese governments start attacking their own people as Gaddafi allegedly is? Do we (Britain, the US and France) start bombing them out of "moral obligation" ?

[Progmetty]

Allegedly my ass, I've got Libyans here who lost family members and some of them are in complete shock they had to be transfered to town because they can't work, one of my close friends lost his brother-in-law and his uncle, let alone the people whose fate is still unknown in the massacres over the last few weeks.
But regarding your question; if there was no other way to help, yes. But it's nothing more but moral obligation, there's no other obligation and no one is gonna 100% be expecting it, especially in cases of China and Iran where the governments military technologies and might is at least 10 times greater than Libya or any other Arab country.

[El Barto]

What happens if the Iranian or Chinese governments start attacking their own people as Gaddafi allegedly is? Do we (Britain, the US and France) start bombing them out of "moral obligation" ?

Iran, perhaps.  China, not a chance.  The moral obligation doesn't extend as far as "die trying."  If you can reasonably help out, as is the case here, then you should do so.  The reason I've been so gung-ho about intervening here is because the Libyan military is such a joke.  There really isn't much risk to us getting involved. 

[rumborak]

BTW, looked up yesterday what Ron Paul has to say, given it was brought up here. He says the US ceded its sovereignty to the UN and that's illegal.
Meaning, Ron has nothing of value to say really.

rumborak

[Nick]

We have an obligation to ourselves to not be animals.   Occasionally we're compelled to act like humans.  Annoying thought it may be, it's important.

I don't think it makes us animals to allow people on the other side of the world to fight through their own problems. In fact it keeps us from treating THEM like animals. It keeps us from telling us what they can and can't do, what leaders they can and can't have, etc. It always amazes me how people can make up obligations to people thousands of miles away they've never met while not being bothered by the true obligations they have to their neighbors and fellow countrymen that are often forgotten.

[ack44]

BTW, looked up yesterday what Ron Paul has to say, given it was brought up here. He says the US ceded its sovereignty to the UN and that's illegal.
Meaning, Ron has nothing of value to say really.

rumborak

Not sure how the US ceded sovereignty in any way but still good to see 'ol Paul sticking to his ways.

[7StringedBeast]

We have an obligation to ourselves to not be animals.   Occasionally we're compelled to act like humans.  Annoying thought it may be, it's important.

I don't think it makes us animals to allow people on the other side of the world to fight through their own problems. In fact it keeps us from treating THEM like animals. It keeps us from telling us what they can and can't do, what leaders they can and can't have, etc. It always amazes me how people can make up obligations to people thousands of miles away they've never met while not being bothered by the true obligations they have to their neighbors and fellow countrymen that are often forgotten.

Good point.  We are just expected to solve a lot of the world's problems though.  I guess it comes with having as much military power.  We can help, so we do.  It's just funny who the Gov tries to help and who they don't.  We didn't give a shit about the genocide in Sudan.  No one helped them out. 

The US is the first country to be criticized but more often than not we are also the first country in to help others out.  funny how that works.

[El Barto]

I don't think it makes us animals to allow people on the other side of the world to fight through their own problems. In fact it keeps us from treating THEM like animals. It keeps us from telling us what they can and can't do, what leaders they can and can't have, etc.

And I agree with you up until the point where it stops being a matter of self determination and becomes a matter of a large group of people being slaughtered by an egotistical asshole. 

It always amazes me how people can make up obligations to people thousands of miles away they've never met while not being bothered by the true obligations they have to their neighbors and fellow countrymen that are often forgotten.

Some things are a lot easier than others.  This is something that's actually fairly straight forward and it's something we're occasionally quite good at.  Changing things at home is a real bitch.  Due to the scale of problems and limited possibilities to improve things because of the system we're confined to,  I can't think of too many things that are going to have as large and immediate an impact as keeping 10% of the population of Benghazi from being put up against the wall.  From a human decency standpoint, this is a damn good bang for one's buck. 

By way of comparison, 7SB mentions Sudan.  Figure out a solution to that mess where we can just blow up a few military units and get back to screwing up our own country, then people will be just as gung-ho about that.  One's a clusterfuck, and one's a few weeks of backing of the French and the British while they blow stuff up.

The reason I keep thinking of this as an obligation is because it's such a simple matter to tend to.  To ignore it would be unconscionable.  Frankly, I'm annoyed that we've been among the foot-draggers in this.

[Nick]

And let's not forget the adage that a government that has the power to give you everything you want has the ability to take everything you need. I do not believe that the United States should take military action against other countries simply because we believe it's the right thing to do. Even the majority of reasons for the Iraq war have been proven false and the justification has now boiled down to Bush believe it was the right thing to do. If America's vital interests aren't threatened military action should be off the table, if the tables were turned I would not want to live in a world where I had to fear air strikes if my country got on the bad side of the world's superpower.

My point is that many people will agree now that using military action against Libya is the "right" thing to do, but we are setting a precedent so that next time the actions might not be as justified, and perhaps even this Libya matter will come back to bite us in the ass, certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[Nick]

To ignore it would be unconscionable.

To ignore it would be our obligation. We have no papers assigning us legal guardians of the people of Libya. We are not the judges of the world. And we certainly should not pretend that our values constitute jury and executioner as well. There is NATO, the Western European Nations, and especially the Arab League who all would have obligations long before us, though I'd still argue the first two certainly don't.

If I see a woman being beaten as I stroll down the street I certainly do feel I have an obligation to do something, and I understand that many people respond with similar emotions to this, but it's time to wake up and realize that the world is not that simple. This is not a minor problem, not something black and white, there are millions involved, all of whom are thousands of miles away with their own views on the right and wrong of what's going on and who all wish to be in control of their own destiny. I would no sooner succumb to the wishes of a dictator than that of a "benevolent" foreign power, and I don't believe we should force our ways on others just the same.

[El Barto]

You overlook that these people have been literally begging for help for the last 3 weeks.  This isn't a unilateral conquest like that fuck-tard's foray into Iraq. 

My point is that many people will agree now that using military action against Libya is the "right" thing to do, but we are setting a precedent so that next time the actions might not be as justified, and perhaps even this Libya matter will come back to bite us in the ass, certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Personally, I don't see why this has to be precedent for anything.  The next time something comes up, either it's right to get involved or it isn't.  This situation should have no bearing. 

[shadowfex]

I'm with El Barto on this one. I think the strategy to quickly weaken Gaddafi's forces to give the rebels the upper hand is sound.

[AndyDT]

What happens if the Iranian or Chinese governments start attacking their own people as Gaddafi allegedly is? Do we (Britain, the US and France) start bombing them out of "moral obligation" ?

Iran, perhaps.  China, not a chance.  The moral obligation doesn't extend as far as "die trying."  If you can reasonably help out, as is the case here, then you should do so.  The reason I've been so gung-ho about intervening here is because the Libyan military is such a joke.  There really isn't much risk to us getting involved. 

Why not Zimbabwe then if things turn sour there again?

[zerogravityfat]

i think they tried to kill qaddafi this morning, but failed. it's a shame.

[El Barto]

What happens if the Iranian or Chinese governments start attacking their own people as Gaddafi allegedly is? Do we (Britain, the US and France) start bombing them out of "moral obligation" ?

Iran, perhaps.  China, not a chance.  The moral obligation doesn't extend as far as "die trying."  If you can reasonably help out, as is the case here, then you should do so.  The reason I've been so gung-ho about intervening here is because the Libyan military is such a joke.  There really isn't much risk to us getting involved. 

Why not Zimbabwe then if things turn sour there again?

Well, I must admit I'm not hip to the situation in Zimbabwe,  but just like the ease with which you can take care of business is important, so is the ability to accomplish a clear cut objective.  Sudan popped up earlier in the thread, and while I see no way that Sudanese guerrillas are going to make things tough on the US military, I also don't see how there could be much strategy other than diving right in with a huge contingent of ground troops.  Just like "die trying" shouldn't be an obligation, neither should "bankrupt yourself fighting a long-term occupation."

i think they tried to kill qaddafi this morning, but failed. it's a shame.

I think their plan is cool for the time being.  They're not targeting him or his residences, but the man would be wise to stay away from any C&C facilities. 

[Dublagent66]

The UN Security Counsel vote was unanimous.  It's the right thing to do.  This isn't the same thing as Iraq.  End of story.

[zerogravityfat]

it wasn't unanimous, there were to abstains.

[rumborak]

That's called a "Wisconsin unanimity".

rumborak

[emindead]

Even if Dick Face is a... dick, why the hell Colombia has a say on this? The guy hasn't declared war to us.

[Nick]

One of the reason I love The Daily Show... you can always count on them to dig up something like this...

The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

No matter what your opinion is on what should be done, this makes it clear that we should not be attacking Libya without a declaration of war issued by congress.

And quite simply put there is no reason to declare war on Libya.

[Adami]

I don't think war was declared, and I don't think it was unilateral.

[Nick]

I don't think war was declared

That's my point, and without war being declared we should not have taken military action. And it was unilateral when speaking on the national scale, the executive branch took this final step without the consent of the legislative branch, something Barrack Obama stood for in 2007 as documented in the above quote.

[El Barto]

The political aspect of this thing is intriguing.  While it would have been better to start earlier, he seems to be playing this pretty well.  He appears to be doing the right thing the right way, and yet he's angered every possible side.  Everybody in Washington is pissed off about this for any number of reasons.  Sometimes you just can't buy a break. 

[eric42434224]

One of the reason I love The Daily Show... you can always count on them to dig up something like this...

The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

No matter what your opinion is on what should be done, this makes it clear that we should not be attacking Libya without a declaration of war issued by congress.

And quite simply put there is no reason to declare war on Libya.

I may be waaaay off, but isnt this a UN thing?

[zerogravityfat]

US is volunteering to uphold the resolution 1973 set by UN. There is no war, this is part of sanctions to take out the no fly zone. You do that by taking out radar towers, command centers, etc.

[Progmetty]

Rescue mission people, freakin rescue mission because we can help is all.
Geez.

[Nick]

US is volunteering to uphold the resolution 1973 set by UN. There is no war, this is part of sanctions to take out the no fly zone. You do that by taking out radar towers, command centers, etc.

No matter which way you slice it the US is leading military actions against another nation that we have not declared war against.

[Adami]

Is the US leading it? It seemed like other European countries were kind of heading the charge on this one.

[zerogravityfat]

US by default leads it since they have the best logistics and firepower, but next week they are going to pack up shop and run for it after the NATO meeting. They don't want to get stuck with the bill.

[Nick]

Is the US leading it? It seemed like other European countries were kind of heading the charge on this one.

For now the US is leading it, but even if they weren't they still should not be involved.

[Chino]

Is the US leading it? It seemed like other European countries were kind of heading the charge on this one.

For now the US is leading it, but even if they weren't they still should not be involved.

I don't think the US is leading this one just because we have the most force. Unlike Iraq, we went in with other countries, and we didn't just go in with guns a blazing. I don't think the US is going to get that much more involved, and I will be really surprised if we send in ground troops. Obama will not let that happen if he wants any chance of getting elected again next term.