I agree with Carole as well. Gaddafi is a fucking crazy despot, and he isn't relenting against the opposition, unlike Ben Ali of Tunisia or Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. This guy actually promised bloodshed and war if the opposition who were demanding democracy didn't bow down.
Okay, it's an internal matter. The problem? Gaddafi is bombing them and shooting them left and right and the opposition are UNARMED. They CAN NOT stand up to Gaddafi's military might. The Transitional National Council, one of the primary bodies formed by the anti-Gaddafi rebels "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties".
The US was incredibly unsure about entering Libya, but it was finally a UN resolution supported by the Arab League and pushed by France that allowed the use of anti aircraft missiles to establish a no fly zone over Libya. More than that the UNSC resolution called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate ceasefire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freezes.
In response to that, Gaddafi declared a ceasefire and continued bombing his citizens.
Sure, France and the US are probably far more concerned about oil. Sure, there is a chance of loads of lives being lost. And sure, it would be nice if we could solve this without bloodshed. But unfortunately, it isn't happening that way, and I think the western liberal nations that have the necessary political setup and military might to help in protecting an oppressed people should, I don't know, help in protecting hte oppressed people.
I've been wondering whether to comment but since BB and Carole have both done so then I'm going to go ahead. Like Carole and BB, I've been following this since the first uprising in Tunisia, and I have to agree with them.
First, the military action was pushed by Sarkozy and Cameron and as BB has already said, ultimately, it was the Security Council's decision to intervene. What is interesting about Sarkozy is that he is a conservative and currently fighting for the right-wing vote in France, especially with the upsurging popularity of the far-right Le Pen. Entering into military action to save an Arab country is not going to be popular among his voters. Second, the US did not go into this lightly and Obama was openly criticised for his hesitation. He did not authorise an illegal war, he merely responded to the UNSC resolution. Considering this, there is more to Libya than oil. While I'm sure oil is a huge factor, Gaddaffi is also massacring his own people, and it shouldn't be ignored.
These two things considered, I've been thinking quite a bit about this situation and I feel there is still a certain amount of guilt within the West about what happens when it ignores the 'internal affairs' of a country that is falling into violent civil war i.e. Rwanda. Libya is already heading that way. The West ignored Rwanda in 1994 and, as such, the Rwandan genocide became the largest organized killing of humans in modern history. Should the West ignore this even if they don't have a vested interest in the nation? I guess it comes down personal opinion on that but I certainly know what I believe. I'm not someone to condone a war, not at all, and it's unfortunate that measures like this are taken that will result in the loss of human life. But what is the alternative? Letting a madman kill thousands, if not millions of his own people? Yes, oil is a big factor, but the guilt of 800,000 lost lives is also something to think about.
Reading this, you might think I'm an optimist when it comes to politics, that I believe everyone is inherently good and out there to save the world for all the right reasons. I don't. I just don't believe there is ever one single, definable agenda.
It's not the initial intervention with which I have the problem. My issue is that, over here, our warmongers don't know when to quit. Who the hell knows how long we'll end up being involved. Once Republican fingers are in the battle pie, it'll be a miracle if our involvement in the Lybia crisis ends in under a year.
This whole situation disgusts me, for both the present and the future connotations of it. It's a shame people are having kids at a record rate these days; what sort of planet are we leaving them with? It's a big clusterfuck of nonsense.
I see your point and agree, but my problem is that we don't help other oppressed people that, say, don't sit on a giant pot of oil. I'm more out with my own country for talking out of both sides of its mouth. I feel for the Lybians, but I honestly don't see the US being able to support this effort for much longer. We've got nothing left.
Okay, it's an internal matter. The problem? Gaddafi is bombing them and shooting them left and right and the opposition are UNARMED. They CAN NOT stand up to Gaddafi's military might. The Transitional National Council, one of the primary bodies formed by the anti-Gaddafi rebels "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties".
The US was incredibly unsure about entering Libya, but it was finally a UN resolution supported by the Arab League and pushed by France that allowed the use of anti aircraft missiles to establish a no fly zone over Libya. More than that the UNSC resolution called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate ceasefire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freezes.
In response to that, Gaddafi declared a ceasefire and continued bombing his citizens.
Sure, France and the US are probably far more concerned about oil. Sure, there is a chance of loads of lives being lost. And sure, it would be nice if we could solve this without bloodshed. But unfortunately, it isn't happening that way, and I think the western liberal nations that have the necessary political setup and military might to help in protecting an oppressed people should, I don't know, help in protecting hte oppressed people.
Reply
First, the military action was pushed by Sarkozy and Cameron and as BB has already said, ultimately, it was the Security Council's decision to intervene. What is interesting about Sarkozy is that he is a conservative and currently fighting for the right-wing vote in France, especially with the upsurging popularity of the far-right Le Pen. Entering into military action to save an Arab country is not going to be popular among his voters. Second, the US did not go into this lightly and Obama was openly criticised for his hesitation. He did not authorise an illegal war, he merely responded to the UNSC resolution. Considering this, there is more to Libya than oil. While I'm sure oil is a huge factor, Gaddaffi is also massacring his own people, and it shouldn't be ignored.
These two things considered, I've been thinking quite a bit about this situation and I feel there is still a certain amount of guilt within the West about what happens when it ignores the 'internal affairs' of a country that is falling into violent civil war i.e. Rwanda. Libya is already heading that way. The West ignored Rwanda in 1994 and, as such, the Rwandan genocide became the largest organized killing of humans in modern history. Should the West ignore this even if they don't have a vested interest in the nation? I guess it comes down personal opinion on that but I certainly know what I believe. I'm not someone to condone a war, not at all, and it's unfortunate that measures like this are taken that will result in the loss of human life. But what is the alternative? Letting a madman kill thousands, if not millions of his own people? Yes, oil is a big factor, but the guilt of 800,000 lost lives is also something to think about.
Reading this, you might think I'm an optimist when it comes to politics, that I believe everyone is inherently good and out there to save the world for all the right reasons. I don't. I just don't believe there is ever one single, definable agenda.
Reply
This whole situation disgusts me, for both the present and the future connotations of it. It's a shame people are having kids at a record rate these days; what sort of planet are we leaving them with? It's a big clusterfuck of nonsense.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment