Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

Radical or not, it's an idea that makes me sick. When you see a govermnent slaughtering its own people, when you see massacres committed, "doing our own business" and not doing anything to stop it is untolerable. I couldn't care less about "national sovereignty" and all this bullsh*t. Human life and liberty come before all.

[Sbane]

The relationship probably went south when gaddafi told the west to mind it's own business. Like I said, the die was cast at that point. Not to mention the fighting did stop the flow of oil and until the revolution ended it was unlikely to start up in a big way. Perhaps the west thought they would quickly end the revolution? And like I said economic concerns were one of many concerns.

And this isn't a matter of not feeling empathy for the Libyan people, but is it really the proper role of the united states and the west to go about intervening in other countries?

[Sbane]

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

Radical or not, it's an idea that makes me sick. When you see a govermnent slaughtering its own people, when you see massacres committed, "doing our own business" and not doing anything to stop it is untolerable. I couldn't care less about "national sovereignty" and all this bullsh*t. Human life and liberty come before all.

So Britain should have been invaded and Churchill hanged for the Bengal famine?

[Sbane]

Or the whole list of atrocities the west has committed. Did the citizens of those states deserved to get bombed?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

[GMantis]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

Your position of intervening on the side of rebels, of which little is known and may be worse than Qadhafi and bombing a sovereign country in the process (probably killing many civilians, which is what the intervention was supposed to prevent), is also morally suspect.

[Middle-aged Europe]

While it is certainly debatable whether the NATO air strikes are actually going to achieve anything worthwhile, it is also interesting to note that "the rebels may be worse than Gadaffi" is continued to be used as a moral justification to take a fully neutral stance on events. I mean, it's f**king Gadaffi we're talking here about. In order to be worse than Gadaffi the rebels would need to be on the same level as the Khmer Rouge or something.

We know that the leader of the National Transitional Council is Gadaffi's former justice minister. We also know that he was considered as something of a reformer even before all hell broke lose in Libya. His deputy was a known human rights lawyer. The prime minister of the rebel government formerly served on Libya's "National Economic Development Board", but was also seen as one of the more reform-minded representatives of the regime. While the council certainly can't fully vouch for what individual rebel units may do or not do in the field, it is a reasonable assumption that the rebels are at worst the lesser evil compared to Gadaffi's regime.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

Your position of intervening on the side of rebels, of which little is known and may be worse than Qadhafi and bombing a sovereign country in the process (probably killing many civilians, which is what the intervention was supposed to prevent), is also morally suspect.

If you seriously argue that not interventing would have led to less civilians dying, then you're either very naive or very dishonest.

[GMantis]

We know that the leader of the National Transitional Council is Gadaffi's former justice minister. We also know that he was considered as something of a reformer even before all hell broke lose in Libya. His deputy was a known human rights lawyer. The prime minister of the rebel government formerly served on Libya's "National Economic Development Board", but was also seen as one of the more reform-minded representatives of the regime. While the council certainly can't fully vouch for what individual rebel units may do or not do in the field, it is a reasonable assumption that the rebels are at worst the lesser evil compared to Gadaffi's regime.

And some in the transitional council participated in the torture of the Benghazi six. At least Gaddafi delegated this to subordinates.

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

Your position of intervening on the side of rebels, of which little is known and may be worse than Qadhafi and bombing a sovereign country in the process (probably killing many civilians, which is what the intervention was supposed to prevent), is also morally suspect.

If you seriously argue that not interventing would have led to less civilians dying, then you're either very naive or very dishonest.

Actually, there are two likely ways that intervening will result in more civilians dying (apart from casualties of the air strikes).
1. By prolonging the war and proportionally fighting in urban areas with the corresponding increase in casualties.
2. Now, one could respond that Gadhafi would cause great casualties by taking revenge agains his opponents. But a victory of the rebels would permit them to take revenge against their opponents, and there are indications that they've already started to do that (this doesn't count the attacks suspected of being mercenaries).
So, like many other things in this war, the effect on civilian casualties of the intervention is quite unclear.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, my friends, how is military option working so far in saving innocent lives and preventing damage?

[J. J.]

Now there is some discussion of group troops being sent in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42657450/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

[Cincinnatus]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

[bgwah]

Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to obtain support for the invasion of Iraq. I don't recall Obama doing anything quite that awful, and while I don't support intervening in Libya, Obama's actions are far less offensive to me than a full blown invasion would be.

[Insula Dei]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

In 2003, Saddam wasn't bombing his own cities or preparing for a huge massacre among his political adversaries.

[dead0man]

Right, it was a slow boil massacre that he (and his sons) had been running since the first Gulf War ended.

[Gustaf]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

In 2003, Saddam wasn't bombing his own cities or preparing for a huge massacre among his political adversaries.

The number of innocents killed  in Iraq by Saddam's terror was pretty high, as I recall. And he certainly wanted to kill a lot of people, but was prevented, to an extent, by the no-fly zone instituted by the US.

[opebo]

In neither case, however - the people Saddam wanted to slaughter and the people Gaddafi wanted to slaughter - was it clear that preventing the slaughtering was beneficial to the national interest of the US.  In fact just the opposite is likely the case.

[Cincinnatus]

In neither case, however - the people Saddam wanted to slaughter and the people Gaddafi wanted to slaughter - was it clear that preventing the slaughtering was beneficial to the national interest of the US.  In fact just the opposite is likely the case.

To our national interest? No, likely not.  To moral interests as human beings? Yes, very much so.  The problem I worry about is an invading force that makes any newly-installed government "illegitimate" to Libya's people (Iraq, for example).  Also, I worry about the long-term costs we might incur because, if we continue to fall more and more in debt, we won't be able to help any foreign nations soon.

[Middle-aged Europe]

We know that the leader of the National Transitional Council is Gadaffi's former justice minister. We also know that he was considered as something of a reformer even before all hell broke lose in Libya. His deputy was a known human rights lawyer. The prime minister of the rebel government formerly served on Libya's "National Economic Development Board", but was also seen as one of the more reform-minded representatives of the regime. While the council certainly can't fully vouch for what individual rebel units may do or not do in the field, it is a reasonable assumption that the rebels are at worst the lesser evil compared to Gadaffi's regime.

And some in the transitional council participated in the torture of the Benghazi six. At least Gaddafi delegated this to subordinates.

Except that this link doesn't contain any information in support of your claims.

[opebo]

... if we continue to fall more and more in debt, we won't be able to help any foreign nations soon.

Great, so at least we agree on increasing taxes upon the rich.

[Cincinnatus]

... if we continue to fall more and more in debt, we won't be able to help any foreign nations soon.

Great, so at least we agree on increasing taxes upon the rich.

We agree on decreasing the debt, not completely on how to do it.  You're free to approach the argument anyway you want.  However, I can't say that I expect much civility based on your previous posts..

[Middle-aged Europe]

We know that the leader of the National Transitional Council is Gadaffi's former justice minister. We also know that he was considered as something of a reformer even before all hell broke lose in Libya. His deputy was a known human rights lawyer. The prime minister of the rebel government formerly served on Libya's "National Economic Development Board", but was also seen as one of the more reform-minded representatives of the regime. While the council certainly can't fully vouch for what individual rebel units may do or not do in the field, it is a reasonable assumption that the rebels are at worst the lesser evil compared to Gadaffi's regime.

And some in the transitional council participated in the torture of the Benghazi six. At least Gaddafi delegated this to subordinates.

Except that this link doesn't contain any information in support of your claims.

Never mind... I googled it myself. It seems to me that your claim is entirely based on the Bulgarian government's position not to recognise the National Transitional Council because it contains former regime members (such as Gadaffi's former justice minister as the council's chairman) who were supposedly involved with the infamous "HIV trials" against the Bulgarian nurses a couple of years ago. However, the idea that council members personally tortured anyone back then is apparently completely fictional.

As for the Bulgarian government's claims that ex-justice minister/rebel leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil was responsible for any mistreatments of the Bulgarian nurses: The Bulgarian nurses were imprisoned in Libya from 1999 to 2007. Jalil didn't become justice minister of Libya until 2007. So far there's no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with this case... except maybe that he presided over the nurses' release early in his tenure (I was unable to obtain a specifc date when Jalil became minister in 2007, so it's hard to say whether the Bulgarians were released before or after).

At this point I'm not sure whether the Bulgarian government is just being hysterical with a tendency for hyperbole or if they're flat-out lying and if so what their motives are for doing so. I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt and will assume that the former is true. The line of reasoning would be something like: Rebel council contains former regime officials + the Libyan regime has tortured Bulgarians = Rebel council members are responsible for the tortures. Probably a logical fallacy.

Of course, one could say that an political institution which contains former officials of Gaddafi's regime is inherently flawed. That would be a legitimate position. It's actually one of the reasons why some members of Libya's opposition were unhappy with Jalil becoming chairman of the Transitional Council. But again, there's no evidence that former regime officials who now belong to the rebel leadership were directly tied to any human rights violations under Gadaffi. (In fact, Mustafa Abdul Jalil was praised by Western observers that he pressed for the release of political prisoners during his tenure as justice minister.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

In 2003, Saddam wasn't bombing his own cities or preparing for a huge massacre among his political adversaries.

I doubt Muammar can match Saddam's body count.