What do you have to go by? There is little to no reason to believe that more people would have died. Why are the chances GREAT??? I dodged because this is not an argument, I have no interest in these philosophical responses. Give me numbers and the details of the conflicts, the state of Libyans during and post-intervention that show me you actually care about Libya and not your responsibility to protect fantasy.Originally Posted by Viking
Adequate or not, this is not enough to justify a humanitarian intervention like the one NATO conducted. If you are not entirely committed and are driven by the sole motive of removing a renegade head of state, you are not presenting a model humanitarian intervention or a good precedent for anything. It set a bad precedent and reveals how they are not to be trusted, because they evidently don’t place a country and its population's interest in high regard.
The persecutions, executions, and banishment of black Libyans today is far worse than what the regime had ever done in its history.And of course, taking up arms against a dictator is, regardless, normally considered heroic and not something to getexecuted for.
USA, Turkey, and some Gulf countries have an agreement in that propping up Islamists as opposition to regimes they don’t want in power is the way to go now.Not buying it.
The operation itself was hardly promising. It was a bloodbath and brought suffering on a wider scale than Qaddafi’s crackdown. It’s easy to see “promising” from your tv set or the quick google search hoping for a new democratic country to emerge.Thus far, the results do not look particularly promising; although a more complete understanding of the consequences of the intervention is probably still many decades away.
Bookmarks