People familiar with International Law and Morality didn't agree with the Afghan War in the first place.

I agree with or accept everything you say here except I'm not clear on your meaning re: socialism vs. fascism. I'm not sure where your reference to fascism comes from. Are you saying that the Western countries are fascist, or that Libya will become a fascist state now that Gaddafi's gone? Also, do you consider ruling as a dictator and militarily crushing dissent more like socialism or fascism? You can't have fascist democracy, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. And as I said before, the country is still oil-rich, and may choose to continue to distribute the wealth in the form of free health care and so on as before.

I have little respect for the UN myself, and don't support their intervention in this case, so no, I wouldn't be OK with getting the UN to militarily support reel groups in the US.>> ^marbles:
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

@NetRunner
right on. true enough, it is certainly where we are at.
I'm not an obama hater. (dissapointed, yes!), but i spent many years as a lawyer, working inside the system, trotting on the hamster wheel and even spending some time in the fed judiciary. I could go on a long tirade about how things are done in the legal world, but i'll just say that i'm an ex-attorney for a reason. Obama, like all presidents before him, has gladfully continued executive power-grabs created by the prior presidents. Balance of power is a joke. And the people have been completely left out of the political process. Decisions are made, and then the propaganda machine goes to work.

There is really no doubt we are in violation of international laws. but we do it all the time, cause hey, we're america and we do whatever the fuck we want.
legalities.... meh. the law is for sale.

i'm looking more at the overall mindset and complacency of a populace that is arguing about the legal semantics of killing it's own citizens in sovereign nations, while the rulers of this country blatantly run it into the ground.

and doesn't anyone recall how our government lied its way into Iraq? Have things really changed?

thanks for the well thought and written posts.

Scahill summarizes my problem with him early on at the 2 minute mark: I don't care that Muammar Gaddafi is gone.

Let me be clear, I care very deeply that Gaddafi is gone. In fact, that aside most of Scahill's assessment of Libya is agreeable. Of course, the importance of Gaddafi's presence or removal to Libyans can hardly be understated. You simply can not care about the Libyan people and at the same time not care whether or not Gaddafi remained in power.

Scahill goes on to ask how forced regime change fits into international law and order.

The real question is how failing to force regime change against convicted war criminals like Gaddafi and Omar al-Bashir can be justified under international law and order. Every signatory to the convention on genocide is obligated to act to prevent or punish those responsible for committing genocide. Where is the outrage with all the nations that FAILED to support the mission in Libya to stop Gaddafi's promised genocide? Where is the outrage with all the nations STILL FAILING to punish Omar al-Bashir for what he order done in Darfur?

The fallacy here is that only actions should require justification, while inaction never requires any justification at all.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.

@heropsycho
Re:war on terror as religious crusade
dismiss, ignore, ignore, deny, dismiss. You're not going to dismiss/deny the other two examples?

Re:Obama and Christianity
Obama claims to be Christian, that's the standard you use for Breivik.

Re:Obama is not intentionally trying to kill civilians
False. It's accepted collateral damage. Raining down hellfire missiles leveling apartment buildings, assassinating entire wedding parties, etc. is terrorism.

Re:Terror bombings in Tripoli
Sorry, everything we are doing in Libya violates U.S. and international law. It's irrelevant what the mission is. Bombing civilian areas and doing fly-overs for hours is done for one purpose: to incite fear into the civilian population i.e. terrorism

Re:"It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large."
It's pretty silly you believe that garbage.

Re:Extreme progressives
So you admit that "progressive" is just another hollow label? What's the difference between regular progressives and "extreme progressives" say...5 years ago? There wasn't. But now it's progressive to illegally bomb other countries.

Thanks for making my point.

opec suddenly deciding to only sell oil for actual gold isn't a conspiracy... its a possibility

the NATO response and the reasons behind it is where the "conspiracy" lay...



and no offense, but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought

how people in the US think that they are somehow above International Law, and that emotion is a good motivation to act that way is beyond me... its moronic really, and that their government's main motivation being money or strategic positioning is somehow like "Alien Anal Probes" in terms of believability is even beyond that

if you aren't aware that the US (let alone most[if not all] Western nations) couldn't operate "AT ALL" based on its actual liquidity, but only on its ability to acquire credit... and how this system benefits them, yet hinders developing nations... I don't think any reason will reach you

somehow the corporations (military contractors) are money motivated... but their lobbies, or promise of "consulting jobs" after terms of service, etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind... nope, motivations based on money/power stop at the corporate level, and don't seep into world politics at all



and "secret motivation" is hilarious, because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right? because if you didn't... stories like this wouldn't be so rare that you'd actually refer to it as a "secret"



foreigners don't dislike American's because of their freedoms, they dislike them because with they waste them and accept the first and most convenient drivel fed to them... seriously

Very nice...the US doesn't just ignore the lessons but treaties and international law at every chance.

It seems to me that there are two main ways people approach moral reasoning.

For some people, it's about adherence to a list of inflexible and absolute rules. For some people those rules come from the church, for some those rules come from our government's justice system, and for some they come from some philosopher. Where they come from is immaterial, the basic moral reasoning is the same: right and wrong is solely determined by whether an action is in accordance with their comprehensive doctrine on human behavior.

For other people, myself included, the moral value of an action is ultimately about the an action's impact on human welfare generally. Most of the time, this means supporting a society with laws and rights, and courts. But that's because it improves human welfare to have society's expectations about human behavior be upfront, enforced, and equally applied. It's not because the law is the word of God, or the full and infallible description of morality. It's because doing so has beneficial consequences for human welfare.

This seems to me to be the fundamental difference between right-wing and left-wing thinking about issues. The right tends to approach moral reasoning through the first lens (deontology), while the left tends to approach moral reasoning through the latter (utilitarianism).

To tie this back to Osama bin Laden's assassination, there are people who say this was an immoral act because it violated international law, or because it violated his legal rights, or simply because killing is always wrong. There are also people who say this is an unquestionably moral act, because the Bible says an eye for an eye, or because they think all Muslims are infidels, or because they think anyone who declares war on our country deserves to die.

For me, I think international law is a force for good in the world, so are legal rights, and so is respect for human life. But I also think Osama bin Laden was a big source of suffering in the world, not just for Americans, but for everyone everywhere. I say killing him is better for human welfare on the whole than the long-run negative impact of our violating international law, and way better than letting him live out his life in freedom.

I think people who want to argue that killing him was somehow immoral have a bit of an uphill climb. They either need to make the case that Osama bin Laden was not guilty of crimes warranting death, and didn't pose any meaningful threat to humanity in the future; or they need to make the case that killing him in this way will somehow substantially change the conventions of international law, criminal jurisprudence, or our general understanding that killing people is wrong.

What isn't sufficient is some vague hand wringing about legal rights, or specious invocations of the Constitution.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?


The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.

Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.


Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:

-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.

If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?

What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?