Bahrain - a conundrum for the interventionists

In the Libya thread, there are several posters who advocate intervention in that country's internal conflict. One or two have claimed that we should do this in every case of liberty being denied.

The rebellion in Bahrain has largely gone unremarked. The Shia majority are protesting at their autocratic Sunni rulers and have been faced with some pretty heavy handed retaliation. Yesterday, a column of Saudi armoured personnel carriers crossed the border to deliver 1,000 troops to aid the Bahraini king - and incidentally send a message to the increasingly fractious Shia in their own country.

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

Clearly, most would argue self-interest however foul a stench it leaves. Or the non-interventionist like myself would call a plague on all their houses and extend non-intervention to include arms sales, and as soon as we can make it practical, oil sales. But there have been some very high-mided calls for action in LIbya - how do proponents of intervention plan this new war?

I'm a pragmatist, and I see no gain for the UK / the west in getting into this quagmire. If the Muslims can start more sectarian violence so much the better as hopefully they'll leave us alone and concentrate on killing each other.

If we can have a plan to help subsidise airfares to get those who wish to leave the UK to the warzone for Jihad of their choice that would be fantastic.

~:smoking:

Well one could be cynical and say that due to low or no oil and gas in Bahrain the world is not too bothered about it.

Myself I think it is just cooler on tv news to see tanks and warplanes so all the hype broadcasters were in Libya as a result.

We clearly have to separate the good bad guys from the bad bad guys. Not to mention the bad good guys!

Good bad guys - ie. Saudi Arabia
Bad bad guys - ie. Iran
Bad good guys - ie. France (remember the freedom fries?)
Good good guys - ie. England

This is of course from an American perspective.

The US should just come out and tell the Saudis to back off. The Saudis and their tame poodles - the Al Khalifahs like to characterise the legitimate and largely peaceful Bahrain protest movement as "Iranian inspired". This is pure nonsense. A nonsense made worse by Iran chipping in and telling the Saudis to not beat up protestors (yes we can all roll our eyes at that one).

The Bahraini protest movement is young, secular and although majority Shia, is not anti-Sunni. Just anti royal autocrat - something that's just beyond the pale for the Saudis.

I've seen footage of peaceful protestors being shot at close range with baton rounds. Of piles of empty CS gas cans. Of protestors carrying the Bahrain flag and numerous signs saying "Not Shia, Not Sunni, Bahraini".

In the light of this I find some comments on this thread repellant and frankly shameful.

An idealist would :shrug:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The US should just come out and tell the Saudis to back off. The Saudis and their tame poodles - the Al Khalifahs like to characterise the legitimate and largely peaceful Bahrain protest movement as "Iranian inspired". This is pure nonsense. A nonsense made worse by Iran chipping in and telling the Saudis to not beat up protestors (yes we can all roll our eyes at that one).

The Bahraini protest movement is young, secular and although majority Shia, is not anti-Sunni. Just anti royal autocrat - something that's just beyond the pale for the Saudis.

I've seen footage of peaceful protestors being shot at close range with baton rounds. Of piles of empty CS gas cans. Of protestors carrying the Bahrain flag and numerous signs saying "Not Shia, Not Sunni, Bahraini".

In the light of this I find some comments on this thread repellant and frankly shameful.

---

Why should I care or involve myself in it. Good for them they are finally tired of all the crap they put up with for thousands of years. I am tired of American blood and treasure being spent on the Middle East. Why should we involve ourselves in ANOTHER war. Sure fight the one we have and I support my government there with everything I have but why spread ourselves even thinner and support and aid people who in the end will just spit on us and call us invaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

In the Libya thread, there are several posters who advocate intervention in that country's internal conflict. One or two have claimed that we should do this in every case of liberty being denied.

The rebellion in Bahrain has largely gone unremarked. The Shia majority are protesting at their autocratic Sunni rulers and have been faced with some pretty heavy handed retaliation. Yesterday, a column of Saudi armoured personnel carriers crossed the border to deliver 1,000 troops to aid the Bahraini king - and incidentally send a message to the increasingly fractious Shia in their own country.

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

Clearly, most would argue self-interest however foul a stench it leaves. Or the non-interventionist like myself would call a plague on all their houses and extend non-intervention to include arms sales, and as soon as we can make it practical, oil sales. But there have been some very high-mided calls for action in LIbya - how do proponents of intervention plan this new war?

---

I'm an interventionist. Should I ever change my mind about that, it won't be over the realisation that tyrants intervene too. :shrug:

Liberty and equality for the entire universe! If it were up to me, I'd don on grandpa's blue uniform right now and march on Moscow tonight. It is practical considerations that should deter us, not ideological cynicism. For example, one does not march on Moscow at minus 85 degrees. Likewise, one does not overthrow Saudi Arabia and Iran at the same time. Better to topple the Middle East despots one by one, spread democracy like an oil slick.

The issue with interventionism is simply this, "Why are we intervening?" and "What are we intervening for?".

If it is for some self-mandated higher purpose, then you would to validate this through a representative body with other like-minded nations. This could be the UN, or perhaps form a "Democratic Commonwealth".

Just randomly picking nations to invade however, is always a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

---

Could you imagine the world response if Iran intervened in Bahrain... or Lebanon? Yes, Saud is as dark and oppressive as Iran, but they have way better PR.


But I can tell you that the Revolutionary Guard must have been itching to set sail across the Persian Gulf. This, incidentally, is the ultimate nightmare scenario for the house of Saud. They'd let IDF soldiers spray-paint Makkah minarets before they'll let Iranian influence spread in the peninsula. So I am not surprised that they sent in their security forces to quell any potential, or perceived, Iranian-backed insurrection.


Edit: Oh, and by the way. Iran like to think it still has territorial claims on Bahrain. Crazy kooks.

Bahrain has not remotely devolved into a situation where intervention is necessary. It became necessary in Libya only when it became apparent that a wholesale massacre of tens of thousands was about to occur. Deaths in any number are regrettable, but the reality is that while deaths are rare and in small numbers, the proper course is to pursue further liberties through exclusively diplomatic means. Diplomacy is still the best option in Bahrain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Bahrain has not remotely devolved into a situation where intervention is necessary. It became necessary in Libya only when it became apparent that a wholesale massacre of tens of thousands was about to occur. Deaths in any number are regrettable, but the reality is that while deaths are rare and in small numbers, the proper course is to pursue further liberties through exclusively diplomatic means. Diplomacy is still the best option in Bahrain.

---

I diagree. The West chose not to intervene in Bahrain because it would upset too many "allies".

In Bahrain, a despot king is killing his own people with foreign soldiers (Saudis and Pakistani mercenaries). In Libya, that foolish colonel is killing his own people with Chadian, Sudanese, and what not mercenaries. Both despots need to be stopped.


Apparantly, the only difference is that Gadaffi has no friends outside the African Union, where he sponsors a few despots, while Bahrain is friendly with Saud and the United States (which has a naval base there). Saud, and the United States I'm sure, does not like the idea of a pro-Iranian popular government in Bahrain.


...They prefer to quell it with violence, apparantly, while pretending to fight for Libyan freedom. How ackward.

Bahrain looks to be heading in a democratising direction anyway, where Libya was in the Iron Grip of a military despot. The crackdown is brutal but it is not the same as having African merc running around lynching people, and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

So, I don't think the two are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Bahrain looks to be heading in a democratising direction anyway, where Libya was in the Iron Grip of a military despot. The crackdown is brutal but it is not the same as having African merc running around lynching people, and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

So, I don't think the two are the same.

---

No, they might not have that many African mercenaries in Bahrain. But they do have one thousand recently hired Pakistani mercenaries. And I am willing to bet that they will be better paid and equipped than Gadaffis poor Guineans, Nigerians, Chadians, et al.


And with Saudi involvement in Libya, you can bet they'll find a way to install some religious kooks in the power hierarchy. That's the price. Saud wouldn't mind turning Libya into a religious colony. And it is a fertile land for that. Remember all those Libyans who went to fight in Iraq, not to mention those special Islamic legionaries Gadaffi created to fight wars in Uganda and Tanzania.

Quote:

---

and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

---

Is there anything to back this up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

Is there anything to back this up?

---

Large gains be religious Sunni and Shia parties in elections since 2002, forming an overall majority in the elected chamber.

Diplomatic intervention only. They are arguing over religion rather than democracy. A more extreme example of a similar phenomenon in Yemen. Diplomatic influence over our "friends"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I diagree. The West chose not to intervene in Bahrain because it would upset too many "allies".

In Bahrain, a despot king is killing his own people with foreign soldiers (Saudis and Pakistani mercenaries). In Libya, that foolish colonel is killing his own people with Chadian, Sudanese, and what not mercenaries. Both despots need to be stopped.


Apparantly, the only difference is that Gadaffi has no friends outside the African Union, where he sponsors a few despots, while Bahrain is friendly with Saud and the United States (which has a naval base there). Saud, and the United States I'm sure, does not like the idea of a pro-Iranian popular government in Bahrain.


...They prefer to quell it with violence, apparantly, while pretending to fight for Libyan freedom. How ackward.

---

The fact that the US has chosen to ally itself with despicable dictatorships such as Saud Arabia does of course matter - a lot, but the situation Bahrain is far from comparable to that in Libya. It is nothing new that states shoot at and kill protesters, it typically never leads to military intervention. The situation in Libya is pretty unique, given that the rebels took control over an entire part of the country in a civil war slash revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Diplomatic intervention only. They are arguing over religion rather than democracy. A more extreme example of a similar phenomenon in Yemen. Diplomatic influence over our "friends"

---

To my understanding, the Bahraini democracy is severely flawed. It has been claimed that it is the regime that plays the religious card, not the protesters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It is nothing new that states shoot at and kill protesters, it typically never leads to military intervention. The situation in Libya is pretty unique, given that the rebels took control over an entire part of the country in a civil war slash revolt.

---

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

---

Intervention is only merited when the number of deaths likely to result from the intervention is less than the number that is likely to result without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Intervention is only merited when the number of deaths likely to result from the intervention is less than the number that is likely to result without it.

---

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

---

Yes, it is ok to kill protesters...no, it isn't. It would though set a pretty expensive/impossible precedence to intervene in such a case, not to mention the fact the alliances in the region would make it very hard to intervene. Expensive not only in $$, but also in human lives.

You sound you like you want the world to be all about absolutes rather than shades of grey, but the world has no such thing to offer..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

---

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

---

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

---

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

No, they might not have that many African mercenaries in Bahrain. But they do have one thousand recently hired Pakistani mercenaries. And I am willing to bet that they will be better paid and equipped than Gadaffis poor Guineans, Nigerians, Chadians, et al.

---

There is some doubt about the stories of Gadaffi's mercenary hordes. Libya is a more complex place than many think.

Mercenaries or Libyans from Fezzan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

---

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to even remotely accuratelly assess the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for an intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

---

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

---

Every single method for determining whether to intervene is going to be subject to a subjective determination. There is no 'accurate' method because there is, frankly, no right answer. Some people will say intervention should always be done to protect human rights, even if no one is dying. Some people will say intervention should never be done for any reason, even mass genocide. There is no authority that can say one view is right and the other is wrong.

For me, it is a cost-benefit analysis that is weighed in human lives. We're going to have to guess no matter which method we use, so my preference is to guess in a manner that is designed to keep as many people alive as possible. Yes, I have to guess to determine whether more people will die with or without intervention, but since guessing is required in every single case that doesn't really seem to be a negative to me. Guessing and subjective determinations are part and parcel of the entire question of intervention, so what difference does it make if the guessing involves the numbers of human lives lost?

The problem is that there was no real evidence that a genocide was imminent. The violent suppression of an armed rebellion by a dictator does not make said dictator a genocidal maniac. There were no such mass slaughters in Zawiya, Ras Lanuf, or Ajdabiya after Gaddafi forces retook them.

And Sarmation brings up an important point. We intervene on behalf of armed rebels who have a means to defend themselves, but do nothing as governments slaughter protestors? Oddly enough, of all the Arab leaders facing uprisings, Gaddafi is actually the most justified in retaliating with military force. :shrug:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Oddly enough, of all the Arab leaders facing uprisings, Gaddafi is actually the most justified in retaliating with military force. :shrug:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, Saudi family is not entitled to to anything but their removal. This is because they are tyrants. There is no difference between family and the country's coffers (they makes Zuckerberg, Gates and carlos Slim look like paupers). There is perrenail violence against their citizens. They have been autocratic rulers, in charge since the 1920s.

---

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 Sarmatian

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...

---

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

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...

---

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Bahrain, for example, has had a bicamal legislature since 2002 where the lower chamber is elected via universal sufferage.

---

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 Louis VI the Fat

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


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.

---

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.
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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

---

I doubt Shia Islamists are wholly "approved".

It's still progress, the English parliament didn't start out as the final work on lawmaking either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That one is unable to destory all tyranny on eartj in one fell swoop does not mean one should not opposse tyranny altogether.


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.

---

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.

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I thought we put cops in jail for that kind of behaviour, not look for excuses.

---

Hey! I am the one in favour of overthrowing tyrannies. You are the one applauding them for shooting protesters.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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.

---

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.

This is not wanton slaughter, it is still very much an internal issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Hey! I am the one in favour of overthrowing tyrannies. You are the one applauding them for shooting protesters.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

That which we cannot bomb, we must pass over in silence.

---

We he nicked it from Augustine's De Christiania Doctrina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

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.