Blame the UN. They're the ones that put the breaks on coalition involvement leading to regime change.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sure, but the dead marsh arabs and their surviving relatives probably not so much.
Refer to 1996/1998, shit was no different.Dilbert_X wrote:
From the point of view of removing a dictator because we've decided he's no longer in our interests they're the same.
How we've gone about it is quite different, and gives the lie to the idea we're in both to 'help civilians'.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-22 06:26:18)
We don't give a shit about civilians in either case. They've just been more tactful (read: bold faced lying and telling people what they want to hear "we're the good guys rah rah rah") with the public on Libya. Bush didn't give a fuck what other people thought. End result is the same. Just less whining about it.Dilbert_X wrote:
From the point of view of removing a dictator because we've decided he's no longer in our interests they're the same.
How we've gone about it is quite different, and gives the lie to the idea we're in both to 'help civilians'.
I'm the one laying it out why I think it's different, you keep dismissing it with crap, and then saying nonsense about the media, calling people parrots and just saying bullshit. Honestly what's the pointJay wrote:
Mek, you made no rational argument. You were anti the Iraq war but you're pro the Libya war. They are the same. How can you be for one and against the other? The only variable between the two conflicts is one is being cheerleaded by the media and the other was derided by it. This tells me you don't put any real thought into your opinions, you just parrot the opinions of others. You're a left wing Hunter/Jumper.Mekstizzle wrote:
Kurds aren't all of Iraq, they're a minority. If the Shia's really all rebelled than Iraq would have looked like how it did for the occupation. IIRC, there were sanctions and no fly zones set up for Iraq too, they just weren't anywhere near as effective as they should have. Also, Gulf War 1 was a proper international and justified response to him invading Kuwait. Why they didn't go further than what they did, I don't know. But the Iraqi people is what made the difference I guess, if they were rebelling like they did in Libya maybe there would have been greater support for ousting Saddam then, even if the numbers were higher it didn't seem like a nationwide thing. Then again, Iraq on the whole is just much much bigger than Libya in every way except maybe physical geography.
2003 came out of nowhere, long after whatever Saddam did and it was all about WMD's and the new buzzword terrorism. Again, there was no massive rebel movement or widespread popular approval at the time of a foreign intervention, much less a US/British invasion with no support from the UN and boatloads of criticism. Much much less for an occupation to boot.
It was the occupation that was always the worst thing though.
Yeah also, however much you can cry about it. Public image (Obama/Democrats vs Bush/Republicans), Timing (massive protests, on going crackdown vs no protests and no crackdown, relative peace) and perception (International consensus, condemnation and approval vs the opposite for Iraq 2003) do mean alot.
The day I'll concede this is another Iraq is the day when we invade Libya against the clear will of the majority of Libyans and people in the region and the whole thing becomes a clusterfuck with Egypt/Tunisia/Algeria etc.. supplying the rebels with weapons to fight the Western occupiers etc.... frankly, I don't see that happening.
11 Bravo wrote:
ya gadaffy is slaughtering his people ya!!!!
proof?
oh well this guy says so.
oh ok. attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if the rebels had an overwhelming advantage you would've supported a no fly zone to protect gaddafi?Mekstizzle wrote:
A lot of people bring up Rwanda etc.. asking why didn't they intervene then, intervene for who? Hutu? lol, in most civil wars there's no clear side you can jump in to defend, I guess you would go into Rwanda and kick the shit out of everyone... The only reason they jumped in to defend here was because it was so lopsided and Gadaffi's forces were being so brutal with the advantage they had, even if the quantity was completely the other way round. There was a clear side to defend here.
I think another reason much of Europe wanted to get involved is the refugee aspect. Italy in particular faces a lot more refugees if Gadhafi wins. If Gadhafi is removed, these potential refugees can stay in their country and rebuild it.Jay wrote:
So if the rebels had an overwhelming advantage you would've supported a no fly zone to protect gaddafi?Mekstizzle wrote:
A lot of people bring up Rwanda etc.. asking why didn't they intervene then, intervene for who? Hutu? lol, in most civil wars there's no clear side you can jump in to defend, I guess you would go into Rwanda and kick the shit out of everyone... The only reason they jumped in to defend here was because it was so lopsided and Gadaffi's forces were being so brutal with the advantage they had, even if the quantity was completely the other way round. There was a clear side to defend here.
eh, interesting perspective... it's hard to go totally isolationist when you're already adopting an interventionist policy, you can't just start scrapping warplanes and warships, and cutting troop numbers, and rediverting that money into better spending on healthcare. It's a dangerous world, and we can only hope that more countries can sort their problems out by themselves, peacefully.JahManRed wrote:
Every time I see a cruise missile fired I think. There goes 20 Nurses wages for a year.
Funny how we can always find the money to kill not save lives.
So you're only ok with intervention when there's some fluffy bunny rebel group on the receiving end of aid? Who's to say the rebels are any better than the current group in power? That logic is so infantile it's not even cute. "Rebels r kewl, i like rebels because i r rebellious".Mekstizzle wrote:
No, there would have been no need to intervene then. Gaddafi put it upon himself by making the rebels who they are, after he started firing/bombing on protesters who were just trying to do what Egypt/Tunisia did. It's on him. The way he did it, jetting in foreign mercs, killing his soldiers who didn't follow the orders, you saw Pilots defect to Malta etc.. saying the same shit.
That's some more stupid logic from you, did we intervene in Egypt to save Mubarak?
Yes well, cry as much as you want, popular opinion and the majority is how shit tends to work. If you want to live in some utopia where that somehow doesn't apply, you need to live in a society of mindless robots. This world is just made up of people and by people, nothing more nothing less. You take away that and it's nothing. It's all just flesh and blood.The only difference being one is popular with the mob and the other is not. What controls a mob? PR.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2011-03-22 09:52:56)
Last edited by Jay (2011-03-22 09:56:31)
Last edited by Jay (2011-03-22 10:07:17)
because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?Jay wrote:
No Mek, none of that matters. It doesn't matter if Cameron is a dictator or not. You are projecting your morals onto other people, the same way neo-cons want to. Are you a neo-con? I know that's a dirty word but you're making the exact same justifications they made before the Iraq invasion.
It is never right for one country or group of countries to interfere inside of another sovereign nation. It is just as wrong for the US to interfere in Mexican elections as it is for us to bomb Libya. We don't have any right to interfere, even if the people want us to.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-22 10:21:41)
It was a dammed if you do dammed if you don't sort of thing.Shocking wrote:
hm... I would say the cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 93 and 96 were justified.
If we would have done nothing in this whole Libya thing it would have had a very negative effect on our image in the ME, I don't think we had much of a choice.
