I suspect the reason was opportunistic. Iran is right out since they have a pretty advanced military and a 3.8 million person army. Even though Bahrain has the smallest army, it is right out because of its alliance with one of our big allies (Saudi Arabia) and it’s the home of the United States Navy 5th fleet. So that leaves Libya and Syria. Libya has the smaller army 116,000 troops vs Syria’s 747,000. Not that the size of a standing army really matters, the United States took down the 5th largest military and again when it was diminished in a few months. I suspect it may have to do with how fast the rebels armed themselves in Libya.

Cold_Zero wrote:I suspect the reason was opportunistic. Iran is right out since they have a pretty advanced military and a 3.8 million person army. Even though Bahrain has the smallest army, it is right out because of its alliance with one of our big allies (Saudi Arabia) and it’s the home of the United States Navy 5th fleet. So that leaves Libya and Syria. Libya has the smaller army 116,000 troops vs Syria’s 747,000. Not that the size of a standing army really matters, the United States took down the 5th largest military and again when it was diminished in a few months. I suspect it may have to do with how fast the rebels armed themselves in Libya.

Sounds reasonable. But those all seem like mitigating factors to an already mostly noble cause, rather than a refutation of the cause itself. If I had to guess, I'd say the cause isn't completely noble, but not as base as you suggest. I'm sure we were hedging our natural resources bets as much as we were interested in making friends in the middle east with groups that clearly have a lot of popular support.

IBCoupe wrote:And I've been over this with Z repeatedly: that we can't be everything to everyone does not mean we aren't ever something to someone. Whether we prevented an atrocity has nothing to do with whether we've prevented them in the past.

And the problems are:

(a) we don't understand why we should go into or not go into some situations. Often, we create more havoc than not - particularly in the long run (well-documented incidents from the past: Iran and the Shah, the first Afghan intervention after the Russians came in, Vietnam, etc.)

(b) Often, we think of ourselves as the "World Police". If that is indeed the case, it cannot be a part-time or selective job. The "police" need to be deal with every violation of the laws we are supposed to enforce.

If we took an attitude that some criminal actions are okay or "ignorable" - because of the person who does it, or a particular self-serving interest, or some other BS rationale - then that selective enforcing is indefensible and makes the law wrong.

Finally, "preventing atrocities" has not always been the outcome of our actions either - the Shah in Iran is a good example. Our oil interests caused us to take actions that caused a country with a fully democratic government (with elected officials, etc.) to revert to a monarchy with repressive and inhumane policies. Who we then defended for decades!

IBCoupe wrote:We didn't get involved because we were worried about Gaddhafi killing the rebels. We got involved, ostensibly because we worried that Gaddhafi would indiscriminately kill millions of people in the process of putting down the rebels. You and Z ask the absurd question, "Why not go everywhere, then?" Because we can't afford to, and you know it.

My position is not absurd, thank you.

If we selectively decide what we will and will not do, then our justifications for those decisions are worth less than toilet paper in my opinion.

Do it right, and do it everywhere - even if it is a moral/legal/ethical stance that the country or its people might or night not want.

We are either the world's police or we are not - this is not a "choose which country and which event and which issue and which moral high ground we want to take a stand on" situation.

That blinders-on/deliberate selectivity, combined with our usual lack of knowledge of situations, is what continually gets us in trouble in the long run and gets the world to think of us as bullies. And creates anti-American backlash.

Most importantly, without selectivity, there is at least a moral high ground to stand on: "We refuse to allow atrocities to occur". And, I could support that!

People like to complain about Jimmy Carter's presidency, but I actually consider him one of the best, moral, World leaders that we have ever seen ... for one simple reason: he and his people told dictators and governments around the world that the US would not provide any aid to countries who did not clean up their Human Rights violations problems. As a direct result, many countries did exactly that - they became safer places for their own citizens.

Z

It's not even true here that the police need to enforce every law equally and consistently. Public policy concerns come into play all the time. We carve out exceptions all the time and nobody bats an eye.

And you know what, Z? You're right. I can't feed every starving child in the world, so screw it. Let all the little f*** starve. Maybe next time they'll be born with edible bootstraps, right?

IBCoupe wrote:It's not even true here that the police need to enforce every law equally and consistently. Public policy concerns come into play all the time. We carve out exceptions all the time and nobody bats an eye.

1st degree Murder? Some other crime comparable to the atrocities we are talking about here? Really?

Obviously I am not talking about US intervention for wide-spread incidence of hangnails in those country's citizens due to their leadership.

IBCoupe wrote:And you know what, Z? You're right. I can't feed every starving child in the world, so screw it. Let all the little f***ers starve. Maybe next time they'll be born with edible bootstraps, right?

Highly unrelated and different situation, and you know it. There generally isn't "special interests" - oil, minerals, politics, future arms sales, etc. - involved in those decisions, with selective disbursements. The "understanding of the situation" is not difficult either.

Regardless, if the US chose to say "we can't feed everybody, so we will stop", then this would be something that we could do. Yeah, it would indeed be damn tough on those kids that then starved. Life isn't fair.

BTW, do you think that the US should be the bread-basket of the world? I think it is a Good Thing™ that we do this, but it is not a requirement on us to do so, is it?

Also, I am not advocating that we stop intervening. I am saying that we should make a decision on whether we are, or are not, the police of the world, and THEN follow through on that decision with consistency.

Yes, I (my opinion) prefer that we do intervene everywhere - using the moral, high ground argument, but I will accept if we collectively decide not to do so. But, then, after that decision is made (either way), follow through properly until the decision is changed. There are no mitigating circumstances for not doing so.

Z

szh wrote:1st degree Murder? Some other crime comparable to the atrocities we are talking about here? Really?

Obviously I am not talking about US intervention for wide-spread incidence of hangnails in those country's citizens due to their leadership.

I'm sure discretion is used all the time in a variety of cases based on public policy served and resources available. Every murder results in a conviction or plea? Or is that, whenever a murderer is not brought to justice, it's because of some weasely lawyer? And never because we just stop trying to solve some cases? 'Cause under your system of consistency, we oughtn't rest 'til we've caught the bastard, right? Or else why bother trying to prosecute anyone in the first place?

szh wrote:Highly unrelated and different situation, and you know it. There generally isn't "special interests" - oil, minerals, politics, future arms sales, etc. - involved in those decisions, with selective disbursements. The "understanding of the situation" is not difficult either.

Really? There aren't any special interests related in foreign humanitarian aid? You sure about that?

szh wrote:Regardless, if the US chose to say "we can't feed everybody, so we will stop", then this would be something that we could do. Yeah, it would indeed be damn tough on those kids that then starved. Life isn't fair.

Right, but I'm not asking if we could do it. We could stop fighting foreign wars. It wouldn't be hard. We would just stop doing it. We could say that we're not going to correspond with any other country in the world because we don't have time to talk to them all.

But I'm not saying that your idea is impossible, I'm saying it's bad.

szh wrote:BTW, do you think that the US should be the bread-basket of the world?

No.

szh wrote:Also, I am not advocating that we stop intervening. I am saying that we should make a decision on whether we are, or are not, the police of the world, and THEN follow through on that decision with consistency or not at all.

FTFY. And because you know full well that we can't and won't follow through with the level of consistency high enough to satisfy you, you are advocating that we stop intervening. Because you're arguing that, even if we decide it is our proper role to defend liberty, justice, and unicorns across the globe, unless we are capable of everywhere and always defending liberty, justice, and unicorns when they are threatened, that we should abandon our collectively-decided proper role, because Z's OCD is getting in the way.

szh wrote:Yes, I (my opinion) prefer that we do intervene everywhere - using the moral, high ground argument, but I will accept if we collectively decide not to do so. But, then, after that decision is made (either way), follow through properly until the decision is changed. There are no mitigating circumstances for not doing so.

Z

I understand full well that you would be okay if we failed to intervene when it was impossible or imprudent, but it's not your aim. I get that. My problem is where you start advocating that we oughtn't intervene where it is possible and prudent as a result. You make "the great" the enemy of "the good," and the world is worse off for it. And how could you possibly justify that we allow the world to be worse off?

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:1st degree Murder? Some other crime comparable to the atrocities we are talking about here? Really?

Obviously I am not talking about US intervention for wide-spread incidence of hangnails in those country's citizens due to their leadership.

I'm sure discretion is used all the time in a variety of cases based on public policy served and resources available. Every murder results in a conviction or plea? Or is that, whenever a murderer is not brought to justice, it's because of some weasely lawyer? And never because we just stop trying to solve some cases? 'Cause under your system of consistency, we oughtn't rest 'til we've caught the bastard, right? Or else why bother trying to prosecute anyone in the first place?

Your original comment that I was responding to, was about police: "It's not even true here that the police need to enforce every law equally and consistently. Public policy concerns come into play all the time. We carve out exceptions all the time and nobody bats an eye.".

Hopefully, the police are not worrying about "public policy concerns" when tracking down or chasing a murderer. Ain't their role. What a prosecutor does, or what the defendant's lawyer does, or whatever happens later in a court ... is not the point that I was addressing.

Yeah, taking words and applying them to a different point (implying that that is I was talking about) can confuse things.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:Highly unrelated and different situation, and you know it. There generally isn't "special interests" - oil, minerals, politics, future arms sales, etc. - involved in those decisions, with selective disbursements. The "understanding of the situation" is not difficult either.

Really? There aren't any special interests related in foreign humanitarian aid? You sure about that?

Your link is about Obama siging laws about no longer banning the funding of abortions paid by International organizations. That is a different situation that I said nothing about.

What does it have to do with the starving children and food aid point that I was responding to?

I will try for more clarity: "With food aid, there generally aren't any special interests that drive the US decision for involvement, and it ain't tough to understand that situation in the foreign country either".

Yeah, there may be isolated situations where this may not be accurate, but the general US policy of providing food aid is, I hope, based on need and not much else is needed.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:Regardless, if the US chose to say "we can't feed everybody, so we will stop", then this would be something that we could do. Yeah, it would indeed be damn tough on those kids that then starved. Life isn't fair.

Right, but I'm not asking if we could do it. We could stop fighting foreign wars. It wouldn't be hard. We would just stop doing it. We could say that we're not going to correspond with any other country in the world because we don't have time to talk to them all.

But I'm not saying that your idea is impossible, I'm saying it's bad.

Sure. I wasn't arguing whether it was bad or not - merely pointing out that we could choose to do stop food aid if we wanted to ... I was responding to your specific words: "And you know what, Z? You're right. I can't feed every starving child in the world, so screw it. Let all the little f***ers starve."

Of course, it wouldn't be a good thing and wrong on a variety of levels.

And, "stopping fighting foreign wars" or "not going to correspond with any other country" is not related to "food aid" - the ethical and moral implications are entirely different, and I made no comment about those topics.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:Also, I am not advocating that we stop intervening. I am saying that we should make a decision on whether we are, or are not, the police of the world, and THEN follow through on that decision with consistency or not at all.

FTFY. And because you know full well that we can't and won't follow through with the level of consistency high enough to satisfy you, you are advocating that we stop intervening.

How did you read that into my words? I am not advocating that we stop intervening - in fact, I stated exactly the opposite in my post. However, yes, I want the intervention to be done with consistency everywhere - as the situation merits. Use the moral high ground argument.

Most importantly, I ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DID NOT SAY: "or not at all". And, yes, I am yelling. Don't put inaccurate BS words in my mouth please.

IBCoupe wrote:Because you're arguing that, even if we decide it is our proper role to defend liberty, justice, and unicorns across the globe, unless we are capable of everywhere and always defending liberty, justice, and unicorns when they are threatened, that we should abandon our collectively-decided proper role, because Z's OCD is getting in the way.

I defend "unicorns"? I don't even know where to begin to get you to stop mistaking my words so badly!

And, as usual, you are getting personal - remarkable as it may seem, I don't have any OCD about this topic!

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:Yes, I (my opinion) prefer that we do intervene everywhere - using the moral, high ground argument, but I will accept if we collectively decide not to do so. But, then, after that decision is made (either way), follow through properly until the decision is changed. There are no mitigating circumstances for not doing so.

I understand full well that you would be okay if we failed to intervene when it was impossible or imprudent, but it's not your aim. I get that. My problem is where you start advocating that we oughtn't intervene where it is possible and prudent as a result. You make "the great" the enemy of "the good," and the world is worse off for it.

Where did I say that we "oughtn't intervene"? On the contrary, I said that I prefer that we do intervene everywhere. Just do it consistently and don't find "mitigating circumstances" to do differently on a case by case basis.

That lack of consistency is what creates the anti-American backlash - the people over there don't believe that we have humanitarian interest in mind. It becomes "Oh, the US is only after their own <name-it>interest".

Would it be better if I said: "Just do it consistently as much as possible"? Fine. But, that makes it all so wishy-washy. Maybe politicians would prefer it that way.

IBCoupe wrote:And how could you possibly justify that we allow the world to be worse off?

Ummm ... I don't justify it. If I was in control, I would intervene everywhere - for humanitarian reasons ... not for oil interests and not for political gain.

Maybe I am too much of an idealist about that.

Z

szh wrote:How did you read that into my words? I am not advocating that we stop intervening - in fact, I stated exactly the opposite in my post. However, yes, I want the intervention to be done with consistency everywhere - as the situation merits. Use the moral high ground argument.

Most importantly, I ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DID NOT SAY: "or not at all". And, yes, I am yelling. Don't put inaccurate BS words in my mouth please.

Oh, so then whether we go into Syria, the Congo, Iran, etc. is absolutely immaterial to whether it's okay to go into Libya? K, we're done here.