Bahrain - a conundrum for the interventionists

[ICantSpellDawg]

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"

[Viking]

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.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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?

[TinCow]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[Viking]

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..