Printable View
He is not justified to ignore the obligations to protect the civilian population - those unarmed. We intervened because it seemed like the rebels were loosing, and because we would expect a lot of civilian casualites in the city - just look to what is going on in Misurata. We would also expect that a decent revenge would be taken on Benghazi and the eastern cities, in particular once the Western media has been driven out of the country, just like things were prior to the uprising.
No, Gaddafi is not entitled to to anything but his removal. This is because he is a tyrant. There is no difference between his family's and the country's coffers (he makes Zuckerberg, Gates and carlos Slim look like paupers). There is perrenail violence against his citizens. He has been an autocratic ruler, in charge since the 1960s.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Tyrants forfeit the right to govern, and must always be deposed. It is not only the right, but the duty of the rebels to overthrow their tyrant. The rebels therefore are a representative of the people of Libya and constitute the government of Libya. Gaddafi is just a warlord, an occupational force.
There, fixed it for you. So when is the intervention starting? Soon I hope, since the US has troops on the ground. Oh, wait, they are there actually to protect Saudi family... but I thought... oh, nevermind...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Wierdly, Monarchy functions differently from Tyranny. There is no apparent reason why this should be true, but it is, and was first observed by the Greeks. Saudi Arabia, and even more so Bahrain, seem to be making progress towards democracy. Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Two different girls are dragged into two alleys. You have got a gun with one bullet. Do you a) take aim and shoot one kidnapper, b) don't intervene at all because you would be a hypocrite for only attacking one of them.
Ahem... which is only populated by approved parties (and hence candidates) and the upper house and King have full veto powers over it. Little more than a tame housecat of a parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Violence is never the answer! What he should do is sit down with both of these guys and explain to them in simple terms why their behaviour is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
That it hurts the economy, makes the girls unhappy and that they won't get any chocolate pudding in jail.
Also the US has 11 carrier battle groups, even with one or two busy in Libya and around Iraq that should leave enough to bomb Yemen and Bahrain. ~;)
I doubt Shia Islamists are wholly "approved".Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
It's still progress, the English parliament didn't start out as the final work on lawmaking either.
Except that in this case, the first one appeared hours ago (Saudi Arabia) and you had a clean shot on him for a looong time (troops on the ground) and than the other one appeared and you decide to shoot him because you only had one bullet. Of course, the added benefit is that the first is giving you a lot of money on the side. I thought we put cops in jail for that kind of behaviour, not look for excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Actually, one bullet isn't a fair comparison. There are a lot of bullets, but they are expensive, making the previous situation even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Please. Any progress towards democracy in Bahrain was crushed by 2.000 Saudi security troops and the fighter jets in the skies over Manama. Likewise, any progress towards democracy in Saud has been similarly oppressed by a massive police crackdown and a religious ban on demonstrations. His highness has been on state TV thanking his people for not rising to overthrow him. I guess he quickly forgot the protesters shot by his police in Qatif.
Hey! I am the one in favour of overthrowing tyrannies. You are the one applauding them for shooting protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The point can be made that there is self-interest, realpolitik, and also preference and hypocrisy. However, it is not the cops that should be put in jail for that. It is still the criminals who deserve to be locked up. You are turning this upside down. By blaming the cops for not living up to their higher standards, you are blaming them for the behaviour of the criminals, confusing the cop with the crook.
See, if you get too cynical, if there is too little social trust, if everybody is on it for himself, then you end up with a society in which crimefighters are send to jail while mafia are allowed to roam free. And the reverse, where mafia rules, where there is no social trust, where perpetrators can present themselves as victims, there it is inconceivable that the common good, humanitarian ideals, equality are impulses of policy.
1,000 troops, surely? These troops are not, as yet, using machine guns to slaughter people coming out of their homes. The situations are still very different. Lest we forget, UK Police kept thousands of teenagers out in the cold at the end of last year, and before that someone died at the G20 in London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
This is not wanton slaughter, it is still very much an internal issue.
Pardon me, it is 1.200 Saudi and 800 Emirati security troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And no, they have not yet used machine guns. They have however killed around a dozen people with shotguns on the streets. And the situation cannot in any way be compared to contemporary United Kingdom, unless British police have started firing live rounds at protesters and using foreign soldiers to keep the peace, without me noticing.
And by the way, when foreign military starts patrolling your streets, then it ceases to be an internal matter.
No, I'm just saying that if there are two crooks, cop should arrest them both. He shouldn't leave one on the street because he's paying the cop on the side. Then we're talking about a crooked cop and crooked cops (should) go to jail. In this case it is even worse since the cop is also a mayor, judge, jury and executioner and I'm more worried about him abusing his power because he is in position to do more damage than those two crooks ever could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Kapish?
We saw, and we might still see continuous shelling of civilian areas by loyalist troops in Libya. We do not see anything like this in Bahrain or other countries at present. If Benghazi had fallen, we should expect a massacre. Not necessarily people lined up, but a slow and steady cleansing of anyone suspected to be involved in the uprising. What is going on in Libya, is a unique chance to stop the plans of mad dictator in their tracks. The protesters in Bahrain also have a chance to stay home to avoid getting shot, which is a typical requirement in not so free countries, given the circumstances. The intervention of the West is so far pretty consistent, though irregularities are to expected. Not the least because the world constantly changes, in so many ways (such as technology and the mood for intervention).
The problem with the analogy of Louis, is that some of the alleys are harder to get to than others. Reaching one of them might require the sacrfice of a limb or two; similar stories for others. The West is not the police, we have no obligations to intervene. But if even we were cops, we would still go for the easiest alleys first, just to make sure that we did actually manage to help someone.
That which we cannot bomb, we must pass over in silence.
Tortured paraphrases of Wittgenstein aside, we cannot do anything for Bahrain. We need Saudi (I.e. Arab) support for the mission in Libya, and if we whinge about Bahrain (Whilst obviously lacking the capabilities to intervene), then Saudi/Qatar/UAE will drop their support for the NATO mission at the drop of of the proverbial hat. The fact that we cnanot intervene everywhere at once on the planet should never exclude us from intervening in places where it is just to do so.
We he nicked it from Augustine's De Christiania Doctrina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Bahrain isn't really progressing into democracy. Conceding make-believe demands hardly means progressing towards democracy. It's the same as saying that fradulent elections are progress just because they had elections. What the bicameral legislature needs is de facto power and ability to enforce their decisions. Something that the monarchy is not willing to let go of, as is seen by their reaction to the protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla