Big can of whupass has just been opened on Ghadafi

[R/T Hemi]

Uh, no, not quite accurate!

When Iraq took their air attacks and chemical warfare to the Kurds - well before 1991 - the world (the UN) and the US did nothing. Because we were too busy supporting Iraq fighting the Iranians then? And were too dependent on the oil that Iraq sold us and the Europeans?

The 1991 war only happened when Iraq went into Kuwait. And that 1991 invasion, by the way, could have been construed by Saddam Hussain as agreed to by the US (by our Ambassador when she met with him shortly prior to the event). Have we noticed that she never gets mentioned in the media and US reports since then?

Z

I never said the UN was perfect. I'm merely stating that it's far better to allow the UN to direct international policy when that policy involves the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

One of the things required for UN action is notice of the event. The gas attacks happened in 1988 and were first publicized in the Iranian media several days after the 5 hour attack you speak of. IT was too late for the UN to do anything about it. The genocide by the Iraq government was ongoing and exclusive of the gas attacks. That would have been a proper matter for the UN. (And I frankly don't remember whether or not it was discussed)

[szh]

One of the things required for UN action is notice of the event. The gas attacks happened in 1988 and were first publicized in the Iranian media several days after the 5 hour attack you speak of. IT was too late for the UN to do anything about it.

Serious question (i.e., not picking on you): why was it too late for the UN to do something? After all, the Kurds wanted to be able to "rebel" against the Iraq government and civilians were killed as a result!

Wasn't it a clear demonstration of the actions that Saddam could take against others in the "future" after 1988?

And, as such, a potential precursor of what he did to others? Including biological warfare against the Iranian soldiers (not civilian, albeit)?

Did the world perhaps just treat this as "an internal rebellion/civil war" issue? After all, the Kurds simply wanted better representation in the government (read "democracy"). Why is Libya different?

By the way, my main point was that this Kurdish killings had nothing to do with the 1991 action taken by the coalition. That was specifically due to the invasion and take-over of Kuwait.

The genocide by the Iraq government was ongoing and exclusive of the gas attacks. That would have been a proper matter for the UN. (And I frankly don't remember whether or not it was discussed)

I don't remember either ...

As I vaguely recall, this "fact" only became public after the Kuwait invasion. If it was common knowledge prior to that, then the American media certainly did not mention it much (or at all) ...

I suppose that I am cynical ... we were on Iraq's side at the time and it would have been "bad" for the US politicians or the US media to say anything against that stance.

Z

[szh]

I've said it several times in other contexts herein. One of my comments centered on the current administration's caution in playing into the Libyan situation. We (the US) have upheld our responsibility as a member of the UN, nothing more. We've acted responsibility in the matter. Our actions were congruent with world opinion and UN policies. We're not in a war here, instead, we're part of an international force designed to protect civilians.

The problem is that by protecting civilians in this matter, we're playing into the rebel's hand. And, as we've discussed, we know nothing of these rebels, what they stand for, what they offer or where they are headed should they win. That scares me. Will this resolve a problem, or create a bigger one.

So the choice becomes one of choosing the lesser of two evils. Letting innocent civilians die, or playing into the rebels hand. But, the UN has spoken, and we've upheld our obligation in this matter.

With a deep sigh, I can generally agree with what you are saying and your viewpoint.

But, I still have some problems that will not rest easy:

1. It is not clear to me that the UN has any such mandate to protect civilians. if so, where was their outrage on other many recent historical events? Where timely action could have helped?

For example, Uganda (Idi Amin), Cambodia, the Hutu massacres, etc., etc., etc.

Myanmar and Tibet even today.

How is Libya different? Seems to be a selective application of "UN rules and mandates"!

2. Regardless of our "obligation" to the UN, we should still have had Congressional approval.

Seems to me that we violated our own rules because of convenience - President Obama wanted to hammer on Libya, and chose not to ask a body who might have prevented it (perhaps).

Z

[AZhitman]

Where's the UN call for action in Syria?

The word SLAUGHTER is being bandied about. Beatings and sniper fire against dissidents. Women were rounded up and subjected to forced virginity tests by the MILITARY. Aren't we in the business of preventing such acts?

I hear from Sanjay Gupta and Anderson Cooper every day. I haven't seen POTUS in weeks.

[IBCoupe]

Out of curiosity, in pointing out all the places where the UN hasn't acted, are you guys trying to suggest that the UN shouldn't have acted here? That it was less justified by its failure to act in circumstances where similar justification existed?

I just want to get a handle on the criticism. Reminds me of a headline on Fark: "If Obama doesn't say anything, Republicans won't know how to criticize him." The concern for civilians in other countries (i.e. "Where's the UN call for action in Syria?") seems disingenuous. If you don't approve of the UN, do that. Don't make weak, non sequitur-ial arguments.

Sanjay Gupta and Anderson Cooper are reporters, Greg - you're supposed to see them frequently because that's the nature of their job.

The President, on the other hand:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/complete/2011-W13

[mattblancarte]

Out of curiosity, in pointing out all the places where the UN hasn't acted, are you guys trying to suggest that the UN shouldn't have acted here? That it was less justified by its failure to act in circumstances where similar justification existed?

I'd say that accurately sums up the logic behind the argument.

As I said before, it's unrealistic to assume that the UN will act on all atrocities across the globe. Often, there are monetary and political motives to drive resolutions like we're seeing in Libya.

[szh]

Out of curiosity, in pointing out all the places where the UN hasn't acted, are you guys trying to suggest that the UN shouldn't have acted here? That it was less justified by its failure to act in circumstances where similar justification existed?

I am certainly questioning ... to me, the UN positions (and actions) are completely biased and convenient - they only go after people who are easy targets, I suppose. Or there is some other reason to avoid intervention in some other countries - like size (Iran, Syria) or political position (Bahrain) or where the US or another country can argue against intervention (Bahrain).

Thus, for the UN to take a stance on Libya is absurd - they have let far more aggregious problems stay unresolved beyond the token resolution. So, for the US to claim that they are "following a UN mandate" in attacking Libya is a poor and untenable position to take.

As a result, I am questioning whether the US should get involved in ANY such action from now on.

Z

[mattblancarte]

Or there is some other reason to avoid intervention in some other countries - like size (Iran, Syria) or political position (Bahrain) or where the US or another country can argue against intervention (Bahrain).

This is mostly accurate and descriptive (at least to the extent of my knowledge on the subject) of why the UN (or the US, in particular) hasn't acted.

I'd like to point out that the armed forces of Iran and Syria shouldn't be grouped in terms of threat level. Completely different budgets, and completely different set of armament (Iran being more than 10x more "dangerous," depending on what you'd like to use as your metric).

Thus, for the UN to take a stance on Libya is absurd - they have let far more aggregious problems stay unresolved beyond the token resolution.

You lost me here.

So, for the US to claim that they are "following a UN mandate" in attacking Libya is a poor and untenable position to take.

The evidence disagrees with this statement.

As a result, I am questioning whether the US should get involved in ANY such action from now on.

A completely valid question/concern. Perhaps taken from several perspectives, it can be opined:

Political: Our involvement in the NATO-enforced no-fly zone is almost required as one of the leading members. Same goes with our place on the UN Security Counsel. It will make us look more favorable and cooperative to our international neighbors, to boot.

That said, the President has and will endure extreme scrutiny and criticism from the Republican Party. Rather ironic, considering "we are at war." I vaguely remember the talking point going out to everyone some time in the last decade that we should unconditionally support the President in times of war. Whatever that means.

Military: Missions will not cause a major diversion, dispersion, or negative impact on the operational capabilities of our armed forces. If anything, it's an extra live-fire exercise in which strategies and understanding of the battlefield can be evolved.

Fiscal: Currently somewhere between $100-200 million in expenditures. A very legitimate argument can be made that this is too high a cost. It could be countered in saying that our involvement in Libya is nothing to scoff at considering the importance of action within the international community.

Domestic: Taxpayers will endure the cost of our military's involvement. No likely increase in terrorlst threats will be had because of our involvement. Average Joe The Plumber will not be affected to any noticeable degree.

Legal: Still up for debate, as law normally is. It's looking like it was perfectly legal, though, and that the Obama administration handled it properly.

If the UN passes a similar no-fly resolution for any other country who is bombing the crap out of dissenters, and it plays out similarly to Libya, I will most likely be okay with it.

It's much more preferable to me in comparison to Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'd most prefer a non-violent world in which we all followed the golden rule without exception. Perhaps if we can advance science to the point in which scarcity for water, food, technology, etc. is nonexistent we can then end violence for the most part.

[AZhitman]

I don't approve of the UN. Never have. I'm not quite "Birch-ian", but I don't like it one bit.

It's like a bunch of little snot-nose weasely kids on the playground following around and sucking up to the tough rich kid - because not only do they know he can handle any conflict that comes along, but he also shares his lunch and dessert.

I know it's unrealistic, and I know it's a little "rant-y", but I think the older I get, the more I lean towards supporting a policy of isolationism.

[themadscientist]

I dance with isolationism as well, but understand that it's a policy that doesn't work. America is one house in the neighborhood and we can't be the Klopeks. There is nothing wrong with telling the other people on the block to use their own damned lawnmower to cut their grass, though, and quit trying to use ours.

[AZhitman]

Yeah. I struggle with it. I just think "picking and choosing" leaves a lot of room for criticism, and it seems it's not being leveled equitably.

[themadscientist]

It never will be. The UN is a bunch of putulant children who want the US to do all the heavy lifting and funding of their BS and then sit quietly while they sit in judgment of us. Yeah, F-that.

I think our influence on the rest of the world is waning and that's not necessarily bad IMO. I'd like to see us pull out of the UN, cut all funding to that pack of jackals, evict them from the NY HQ, and drop the structure for a new park.

They can move their happy asses to Paris and see if the French want to put up with that crap.

We can continue to work in partnership with other countries one on one and tell the idiots to get bent.

[mattblancarte]

We can continue to work in partnership with other countries one on one and tell the idiots to get bent.

Just like North Korea?

It's $3-4 billion per year to act like the boss, own the stage, and always have home-court advantage. 78% of all funds are paid by other countries, and we get to host the UN in NYC. Totally worth it in my opinion.

USA kicks the most a**, makes the most dough, bakes the most bread, and owns the largest and most powerful arena for international diplomacy in the world.

I am not in favor or relinquishing that much awesomeness.

[AZhitman]

Ummm, leaving the UN doesn't "relinquish" anything.

It just means we quit giving rides to the kid with the drool cup.

[mattblancarte]

Lol @ drool cup.

Better to give rides instead of having them shoot spitballs at us.

[AZhitman]

They bring a spitball, we bring a Patriot missile.

Oh, wait. That's violent rhetoric.

[mattblancarte]

I have no problem with it in this context, and I agree with the basic concept.

I don't think that being active in the UN and retaliating against aggressors are mutually exclusive concepts.

[AZhitman]

...me neither. I just think there's no real "win" for us unless we start pulling back and taking care of what's INSIDE our borders.

[mattblancarte]

I agree that domestic issues are of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, half the country hates the other half and so we spend all our time jockeying for leadership in the executive and legislative branches... Only to find out both dems and repubs are a-holes and don't give a rat's behind about the Average Joe.

With the exception of Congressman Weiner. I kid, I kid.

I blame lobbyists and corporate sponsorship of legislation.

It's not even a remotely original idea, but I think it would be great to have each Congressman wear sponsorship patches while Congress is in session. NASCAR style.

[AZhitman]

^ WIN. I love it.

I don't think half the country would hate the other half if we were taking care of stuff IN-HOUSE. I think the issues that divide us would decrease.

[mattblancarte]

This may sound crazy as hell, but I would love to see a bill introduced that would completely wipe out poverty in the United States.

Not saying it's a good idea to just hand junkies and crackheads money, but on the surface it's something that would be very nice to have dealt with as a society. I feel much more connected to the poverty issue now that I live in downtown Seattle. Just today I saw some junker pissing on the wall in the alley across the street from my building. wtf junkers... :/

It would obviously need to be much more clever than simply handing out money, but damn. 99.99% prosperity would be a pretty amazing thing to accomplish.

How about 99.99% of able bodied folks within acceptable BMI ranges? I certainly have nothing against overweight folks, but society could benefit from increased health of each individual.

Entrepreneurs such as myself need to hurry up and invent replicators. Free food for everyone. Need (x)? Let me take this piece of plastic I found at the dump and rearrange the atoms into (x).

There you go. World fixed.

I can dream, can't I?

[themadscientist]

It's not even a remotely original idea, but I think it would be great to have each Congressman wear sponsorship patches while Congress is in session. NASCAR style.

That is genius!

Senator, how was the campaign?
"my communications director was good, the tour bus handled good. It was like being on a spaceship,,,I'm not sure what to do with my hands."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqhkdHlCHLk[/youtube]

[R/T Hemi]

I dance with isolationism as well, but understand that it's a policy that doesn't work. America is one house in the neighborhood and we can't be the Klopeks. There is nothing wrong with telling the other people on the block to use their own damned lawnmower to cut their grass, though, and quit trying to use ours.

I've not answered some of your post her as others have come along and done a better job of responding that I could have.

However, scientist is correct here. When you don't mow your lawn, and you've been repeatedly asked to mow your lawn, and your neighbors are suffering from your ignoring your lawn, then perhaps it's time to dust off the big industrial lawn mower that's powered by world opinion and mow the damn lawn.

Here's the real problem with Libya. Assume we (the international community) fails. What lesson is sent to the dictator if that happens? The use of military force and killing enough innocent citizens assures their remaining in power. Kill more, stay longer. So many here have screamed about the atrocities the UN hasn't acted on as justification for opposing those atrocities the UN has acted on. I see an inconsistency there.

[AZhitman]

Correct.

So, how do you reconcile that with the fact that BHO has left the door wide-open to the possibility of Ghadafi staying in power?

To me, the inconsistency is the lack of direction / focus / WDWP. That's NOT present, no matter HOW much we support / don't support the decision. It's simply not present. That's all.

[R/T Hemi]

Correct.

So, how do you reconcile that with the fact that BHO has left the door wide-open to the possibility of Ghadafi staying in power?

To me, the inconsistency is the lack of direction / focus / WDWP. That's NOT present, no matter HOW much we support / don't support the decision. It's simply not present. That's all.

That's not the case. Obama, as well as the world is not advocating the use of power to remove Gadaffi. In fact, the situation goes deeper than that. This is from an interesting read at

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 81470.html

Obama has wisely insisted that the US step aside, once having made those contributions only it can make, in order to cede leadership to others, including those in the Arab world, whose interests are far more directly at stake in Libya than are those of the US.
And Turkish prime minister Erdogan has very wisely insisted that, while NATO may take on the role of operational coordination of military actions in Libya, the burden of political guidance, in what will inevitably become a highly complicated and politically uncertain situation, be far more widely shared.

Here especially, Arab nations should not be allowed, and should not allow themselves, to avoid responsibility.

Of the three elements of UN-mandated action in Libya – a weapons embargo, a no-fly zone, and protection of civilians – the first two are relatively easy; the third is exceedingly ambiguous and difficult.

As the Libyan rebels continue efforts to free themselves from a vile regime from which they can expect no quarter, the international community is sure to be confronted with a series of difficult choices. When and where should coalition aircraft intervene to attack the regime's superior armour, artillery and rocket forces, when their mandate is restricted to civilian protection?

The logic of the situation dictates that short of outright regime change, large numbers of Libyan civilians, who can never again be considered reliable by the regime, will remain abjectly vulnerable to the tender mercies of Gaddafi, even if far from the front lines of battle. Who will protect them?

There's no quick answer is here.

[AZhitman]

Here especially, Arab nations should not be allowed, and should not allow themselves, to avoid responsibility.

Too late. They weren't doing anything before we started lobbing ordinance.

I've no confidence in them - any of them - to "do the right thing" or "take responsibility". For all we know, they're supportive of an oppressive regime in Libya (evidence suggests that they actually are).

They *SHOULD* do a lot of things. But they don't. And it's not our job to make sure they do.

[mattblancarte]

I've no confidence in them - any of them - to "do the right thing" or "take responsibility". For all we know, they're supportive of an oppressive regime in Libya (evidence suggests that they actually are).

Certainly one inherent problem with international diplomacy, and a very legitimate concern.

At least the playing field has leveled a bit with the no-fly zone, and dissenters of the old Libyan regime have a more fighting chance.

Will they fall back on rigid theocratic principles? Probably. Such is the nature of the region.

It would be pretty amazing if the UN were to outlaw theocracies. I could get behind that.

[szh]

Thus, for the UN to take a stance on Libya is absurd - they have let far more aggregious problems stay unresolved beyond the token resolution.

You lost me here.

Sorry ... did not mean to confuse.

My point was: look at the civil situations in Burma, Tibet and North Korea for simple examples (and there are others) where the UN has simply passed resolutions "condemning" the problem, but done nothing much more proactive than that.

Why? Is it perhaps impolitic to criticize China for their Tibet policies? Or are we afraid to impose no-fly zones over Korea?

What about Bahrain? Why didn't the UN declare that country's recent vicious crackdown (far worse than Libya by the way!) require intervention?

Was it because the US would have veto'ed any action? Because of our support for the despot ruler?

My point is simple: If the world truly believes that civilians should be protected, then DO IT ALL THE EFFING TIME ... NOT selectively here and there ... with political expediency as the overriding factor.

That is my concern about the UN (and consequent US) intervention in Libya. It is selective and biased, and not consistent.

Z

[AZhitman]

^ Eloquent guy nails it.

I think I may have mentioned the word "inconsistent" previously in this thread. I wish the stuff in my head had a clearer route to my keyboard.

[mattblancarte]

Sorry ... did not mean to confuse.

My point was: look at the civil situations in Burma, Tibet and North Korea for simple examples (and there are others) where the UN has simply passed resolutions "condemning" the problem, but done nothing much more proactive than that.

Why? Is it perhaps impolitic to criticize China for their Tibet policies? Or are we afraid to impose no-fly zones over Korea?

I wasn't really confused... I just have a hard time making the jump in logic. I think there are too many generalities being used in your examples.

Burma: Would require ground forces and occupation, and there are no bombings of civilians that I'm aware of.

Tibet: Although taken by force in the mid 20th century, the Chinese are not bombing protesters. Would you like China to push for a no-fly zone in Iraq and Afghanistan? I would not. The Chinese are not bombing innocent civilians in Tibet. We are, however, killing innocents left and right in Iraq and Afghanistan.

North Korea: Threat of nuclear war is deterring any hot conflict. No bombing of civilians in this case, either. Most citizens are brainwashed, and wouldn't support any regime change anyways.

We are heavily entrenched (militarily and politically) in the Korean theater, as our interests in South Korea and Japan demand.

What about Bahrain? Why didn't the UN declare that country's recent vicious crackdown (far worse than Libya by the way!) require intervention?

Was it because the US would have veto'ed any action? Because of our support for the despot ruler?

Bahrain is another case in which ground forces would be required. The UN and the US have both declared violent actions against protesters to be too much, but that is about the best we can do without going to war.

There is no support for the monarchy's actions lately form either the UN or the US.

"Far worse" is relative. A no-fly zone would be pointless because they aren't bombing protesters.

My point is simple: If the world truly believes that civilians should be protected, then DO IT ALL THE EFFING TIME ... NOT selectively here and there ... with political expediency as the overriding factor.

That is my concern about the UN (and consequent US) intervention in Libya. It is selective and biased, and not consistent.

As I've said, this is just unrealistic. While I agree 100% with the ideology, it's just not going to happen yet.

There's more to it than political expediency, as I've clearly pointed out.

Again, your comparisons are not as similar as you're presenting them to be. The choice to intervene in Libya was made because a no-fly zone is less costly, non-occupational in nature, and would not require massive loss of life for allied forces.

All other scenarios you've presented do not fit that bill.