Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene
Options
Comments
-
So, realweirdo, are you going to show us where you actually responded to points made or did I call your bluff?0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »So, realweirdo, are you going to show us where you actually responded to points made or did I call your bluff?
Not really - you strike me as someone who will never be fully satisfied with anyones answers so there's no point - my answers are all there and I have no interest in playing word games with you - far too busy to do that.0 -
And that of course is nonsense, because your response to the post I cited made absolutely no reference to the point about the lion's share of responsibility being with those who ultimately made the decision to intervene, not those who were lobbying them to. It was just a repetition and embellishment of your previous post. And then you claimed that you had responded, despite the fact that you did not.realweirdo wrote: »Not really - you strike me as someone who will never be fully satisfied with anyones answers so there's no point - my answers are all there and I have no interest in playing word games with you - far too busy to do that.
As I said, you're soapboxing and you're caught. Those are the facts.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »And that of course is nonsense, because your response to the post I cited made absolutely no reference to the point about the lion's share of responsibility being with those who ultimately made the decision to intervene, not those who were lobbying them to. It was just a repetition and embellishment of your previous post. And then you claimed that you had responded, despite the fact that you did not.
As I said, you're soapboxing and you're caught. Those are the facts.
I could write a whole book in detail as a response and you still wouldn't be happy - I replied - if you're not happy with my answer, tough, I'm certainly not going to change it for you. My answer is the same and will always be the same - the UN general assembly voted 7-1 to recognise the NTC.
The UNSC voted 12-0 to implement a no fly zone.
Clearly you are against democracy in all its forms, am I right in thinking that.
You're approach to world affairs is a recipe for disaster.
I for one think it was foolish of the Americans to go into Iraq in 2003 without UNSC approval - if memory serves they got the approval later after the start of the conflict.
However I believe that either the UNSC which includes China and Russia should be the ultimate arbitars of enforing the will of the international community or not.
In other words your approach to ignoring the UNSC and UN General Assembly mirrors George Bush's exactly. Well done on that!! It gives a thumbs up to anyone and everyone to act unilaterly and without legality whenever they want.
And that's the ultimate point - NATO acted with full legality in Libya. Whereas you are in favour of acting illegally it seems or probably worse not doing anything at all.0 -
Pity that wasn't the question. What does that vote have to do with the lions share of the responsibility goes to those who actually did intervene? I never suggested that those who agitated or helped facilitate it in the UN had no blame only that no amount of facilitation or agitation alone would have made it happen. The vote of the UN security council, not general assembly, is thus irrelevant to what I said.realweirdo wrote: »I could write a whole book in detail as a response and you still wouldn't be happy - I replied - if you're not happy with my answer, tough, I'm certainly not going to change it for you. My answer is the same and will always be the same - the UN general assembly voted 7-1 to recognise the NTC.
No, I have never never said anything of the sort, unless you're from the asinine school of 'give me liberty or give me death' - and in that regard, I'd choose dictatorship over death and so would anyone who isn't a complete idiot.Clearly you are against democracy in all its forms, am I right in thinking that.
As opposed to such success stories as Libya or Iraq?You're approach to world affairs is a recipe for disaster.
You've just equated refusing to act with acting unilaterally. Cute, but still a logical fallacy. You do understand that to act unilaterally here can likely be illegal, but not to do so actually isn't? What breach of international law would there have been had the West simply said, "no"? None.In other words your approach to ignoring the UNSC and UN General Assembly mirrors George Bush's exactly. Well done on that!! It gives a thumbs up to anyone and everyone to act unilaterly and without legality whenever they want.
And what has that to do with anything I said? Did I ever suggest it was not legal? And not acting would not have been illegal, despite your rather crude attempt to suggest so. So what on Earth are you going on about?And that's the ultimate point - NATO acted with full legality in Libya.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Pity that wasn't the question. What does that vote have to do with the lions share of the responsibility goes to those who actually did intervene? I never suggested that those who agitated or helped facilitate it in the UN had no blame only that no amount of facilitation or agitation alone would have made it happen. The vote of the UN security council, not general assembly, is thus irrelevant to what I said.
No, I have never never said anything of the sort, unless you're from the asinine school of 'give me liberty or give me death' - and in that regard, I'd choose dictatorship over death and so would anyone who isn't a complete idiot.
As opposed to such success stories as Libya or Iraq?
You've just equated refusing to act with acting unilaterally. Cute, but still a logical fallacy. You do understand that to act unilaterally here can likely be illegal, but not to do so actually isn't? What breach of international law would there have been had the West simply said, "no"? None.
And what has that to do with anything I said? Did I ever suggest it was not legal? And not acting would not have been illegal, despite your rather crude attempt to suggest so. So what on Earth are you going on about?
You'd choose dictatorship over death? What on earth are you talking about? So far the recent fighting in Libya has claimed the lives mostly of rebel groups fighting each other which all in all is probably not a bad thing. I'd like some sources from you on civilian deaths recently if possible. So ideally you'd come up with those sources and back your arguments with facts rather than your personal opinion.
Secondly, tens of thousands died under Gadaffi in Libya and tens of thousands more outside of Libya as a direct result of his actions including training and arming Charles Taylor. So far, the post Gadaffi period has an awful long way to go to be as bad as the Gadaffi period.
At least I have gotten you to accept that NATO acted with full legality under international law. That is a start.
The will of the international community in relation to Libyan intervention was clear. They wanted intervention. It was right and legal to intervene in Libya.
The ultimate responsibility for whatever state the country lies in now is (1) the Libyans themselves who are acting stupidly (2) radical Islam which is the main reason the middle east and much of Africa is a sh*thole (3) a failure of the international community particularly the EU to support the Libyan people properly post Gadaffi (4) Gadaffi himself who ruled with an iron fist for 40 years denying even the most basic of proper democratic structures and thus leaving a vacuam. However it is better to have a vacuam which the Libyan people themselves can start to fill than having a mass murdering rapist as president who treated his people like rats and called them as much. "Either I rule you or you die". Clearly you had no issue with that pronouncement. I and most normal people did however.
Address those points if you like.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »So many lies in one post, where do I start. Obama and Bush were democratically elected, so to call them dictators is lie number 1.
Obama didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq. George Bush did. Lie number 2.
He didn't go unilaterly into Libya, America was a small part of a NATO operation that had massive interntional support. Lie number 3 from you.
What rubbish? Are you doubting that Syria had chemical weapons? If so, that's lie number 4.
If you are saying Assad, Gadaffi or Saddam were democrats or won democratic elections, that's lie number 5.
Your lies might fool and impress others. They certainly don't impress me and I'm calling you out on them.
The UN doesn't seem to want to police the world either. What do you think would happen if no-one policed the world? The middle east would be over-run by genocidal maniacs like IS for a start. I'm guessing that so long as it doesn't effect us in the west or europe you would have no problem with that at all.
Bush democratically elected you say? The man had to cheat Al Gore out of the election in the year 2000. Then again he did have his brother to do his dirty work for him in the state of Florida, and his fathers hand picked members of the Supreme Court to rubber stamp it.
We then went on to see 8 years have an absolute horror show, the after effects in which is still felt now. The costs of which will no doubt take decades to pay off. Yes, Bush was a dictator. His actions, and the actions of his executive branch have resulted in 100,000s innocent civilians being murdered, and scores more wounded for a life time. All based on a pack have absolute LIES!
The actions in Libya had no more broad International support than the Iraq War did. The 'coalition of the willing', was pro-war propaganda by Bush and his neocons that was waved before the International community, as if to dupe the global population into believing their actions against Iraq had global support, which it never did. Bush only had his stooge Blair always by his side, but the majority of the British public were against the war. Even members of Blair's own party were against it. So for you to say above that the actions in Libya also had massive International support is false.0 -
The actions in Libya had no more broad International support than the Iraq War did. The 'coalition of the willing', was pro-war propaganda by Bush and his neocons that was waved before the International community, as if to dupe the global population into believing their actions against Iraq had global support, which it never did. Bush only had his stooge Blair always by his side, but the majority of the British public were against the war. Even members of Blair's own party were against it. So for you to say above that the actions in Libya also had massive International support is false.
More lies - it was voted for by the UNSC - the Iraq war wasn't before it happened.
Bush was elected twice. There was legal arguments over the first one, but all in all, its hard to dispute that he went through a democratic election process and narrowly came out the victor. In Syria on the otherhand there is no such process except rigged elections. So another lie from you.
Bush didn't only have his stooge Blair by his side - another lie - there were 40 nations in total in the coalition of the willing - the most competent of them participated directly in the invasion, the rest added troops later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Some members of Blair's party were against it at the time, most were in favour and didn't resign. A number of others only came out later as being against it when there was no longer the chance they'd lose their fat ministerial salaries and pensions.
114-17 General Assembly in favour of the Libyan NTC, no-one voting against on the UNSC, numerous NATO countries involved, GCC in favour, Arab League in favour, numerous African countries recognising the NTC and cutting ties with Gadaffi, also South American and virtually all the Arab states and most nations in Asia. Gaddafi had few friends in the end because they all knew he was a nutter, a nutter you seem to have a lot of time for though. So again another lie from you that it didn't have massive international support.
Keep the lies coming though, they really do amuse me. I'm all in favour of people making points on here but if they are going to back it up with lies, why bother?0 -
realweirdo wrote: »
If Saddam, Gadaffi or Assad had listened to the will of their people via democratic elections and stepped down peacefully if voted out, none of these conflicts would have happened. Violent tyrants usually end up one way, their own violent deaths.
No.
These conflicts happen because criminals control western foreign policy.
This leads to a situation where our governments/military/corporations are well behaved at home, but are then allowed to run amok in developing countries and elsewhere bombing, asset stripping and installing/deinstalling dictators/governments and generally causing as much destruction and abuse as they want.
The prime culprits in this game of domination are the USA, UK and France, with others being involved too. NATO is the combined alliance.
They are able to get away with this atrocious behavior through a well organized system of propaganda and the anesthetization of the public. On one hand you have the consistent lying and twisting of the narrative which makes most normal people in the street think that we are the good guys, and on the other hand you have a vast system of entertainment and capitalism that keeps most people more than occupied for their entire lives.
Any opposition to this system by any country will be met by destabilization, overthrow and even out-rite military action. Gaddafi being raped and killed on TV screens across the world sends a very powerful message to anyone who dares step out of line.
Bend the knee, or be destroyed.0 -
Fig of Fallacy wrote: »No.
These conflicts happen because criminals control western foreign policy.
This leads to a situation where our governments/military/corporations are well behaved at home, but are then allowed to run amok in developing countries and elsewhere bombing, asset stripping and installing/deinstalling dictators/governments and generally causing as much destruction and abuse as they want.
The prime culprits in this game of domination are the USA, UK and France, with others being involved too. NATO is the combined alliance.
They are able to get away with this atrocious behavior through a well organized system of propaganda and the anesthetization of the public. On one hand you have the consistent lying and twisting of the narrative which makes most normal people in the street think that we are the good guys, and on the other hand you have a vast system of entertainment and capitalism that keeps most people more than occupied for their entire lives.
Any opposition to this system by any country will be met by destabilization, overthrow and even out-rite military action. Gaddafi being raped and killed on TV screens across the world sends a very powerful message to anyone who dares step out of line.
Bend the knee, or be destroyed.
Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
realweirdo wrote: »More lies - it was voted for by the UNSC - the Iraq war wasn't before it happened.
Bush was elected twice. There was legal arguments over the first one, but all in all, its hard to dispute that he went through a democratic election process and narrowly came out the victor. In Syria on the otherhand there is no such process except rigged elections. So another lie from you.
Bush didn't only have his stooge Blair by his side - another lie - there were 40 nations in total in the coalition of the willing - the most competent of them participated directly in the invasion, the rest added troops later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Some members of Blair's party were against it at the time, most were in favour and didn't resign. A number of others only came out later as being against it when there was no longer the chance they'd lose their fat ministerial salaries and pensions.
114-17 General Assembly in favour of the Libyan NTC, no-one voting against on the UNSC, numerous NATO countries involved, GCC in favour, Arab League in favour, numerous African countries recognising the NTC and cutting ties with Gadaffi, also South American and virtually all the Arab states and most nations in Asia. Gaddafi had few friends in the end because they all knew he was a nutter, a nutter you seem to have a lot of time for though. So again another lie from you that it didn't have massive international support.
Keep the lies coming though, they really do amuse me. I'm all in favour of people making points on here but if they are going to back it up with lies, why bother?
The NTC isn't what I was discussing, because that's a separate issue as well you know. I was referring to UN resolution 1973, which I'm guessing from reading your comment above is the evidence that you are trying to put forward as evidence of MASSIVE International support. But what you failed to mention is the fact that two global powers Russia and China abstained. As did Germany, India, and Brazil. So on that basis your claim of massive International Support is outright false. So maybe you are the one who's distorting the truth and telling lies.
I wouldn't have a problem in changing my position if these so called interventions turn out to be a success. But the opposite happens. We are still hearing about conflict, and violence in the likes of Libya and Iraq years later. So getting rid of Saddam and Gaddafi under the slogan of spreading peace, and democracy has turned out to be an abysmal failure in my eyes.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.
Waiting for the overthrowing of Robert Mugabe .......................0 -
Means Of Escape wrote: »Waiting for the overthrowing of Robert Mugabe .......................
That means what exactly??
Its hard to understand what point you are trying to make. Would it be some high minded idea that western corporations and consumerism are behind all the problems in the world today? And if only we all went back to a more simple life of herding sheep on mountains or something like that everything would be ok?0 -
The NTC isn't what I was discussing, because that's a separate issue as well you know. I was referring to UN resolution 1973, which I'm guessing from reading your comment above is the evidence that you are trying to put forward as evidence of MASSIVE International support. But what you failed to mention is the fact that two global powers Russia and China abstained. As did Germany, India, and Brazil. So on that basis your claim of massive International Support is outright false. So maybe you are the one who's distorting the truth and telling lies.
I wouldn't have a problem in changing my position if these so called interventions turn out to be a success. But the opposite happens. We are still hearing about conflict, and violence in the likes of Libya and Iraq years later. So getting rid of Saddam and Gaddafi under the slogan of spreading peace, and democracy has turned out to be an abysmal failure in my eyes.
Support for the NTC is not a seperate issue, its the same issue. 114 members of the UNGC stated they no longer thought gaddafi had legitimacy as leader of libya due largely to the way he treated his people which basically was like rats to be exterminated. He was a sociopath who didnt care who he killed only to stay in power. There was no redeeming feature to gaddafi and in the end he had very few friends left in his sewer pipe. Thousands of his soldiers deserted. He tried to recruit men in zintan and they told him to clear off. Not one nation opposed 1973 thats the main point. And yet in your universe when there is a 10-0 vote that should be ignored and the 0 side be given victory. Some democracy that is! Glad you aren't controlling elections! Blaming America or the west for libya is frankly stupid because 1. The rest of the world also thought gadaffi should be stopped and 2. Libya is nowhere near as bad today as it was under gadaffi where everyone lived in fear or as bad as syria where isis are fast on the way to being the biggest armed force in tbe country thanks largely in inaction from the international community. Unless you lived in libya which I doubt you did you wouldn't know.
In summary you are trying to use libya as another stick to beat america and you are frustrated that no-one is buying into it. Your hatred of america is a bit scary to be honest. I hope you are boycotting all things american especially related to american corporations and being consistant. Please tell me you are!0 -
realweirdo wrote: »Support for the NTC is not a seperate issue, its the same issue. 114 members of the UNGC stated they no longer thought gaddafi had legitimacy as leader of libya due largely to the way he treated his people which basically was like rats to be exterminated. He was a sociopath who didnt care who he killed only to stay in power. There was no redeeming feature to gaddafi and in the end he had very few friends left in his sewer pipe. Thousands of his soldiers deserted. He tried to recruit men in zintan and they told him to clear off. Not one nation opposed 1973 thats the main point. And yet in your universe when there is a 10-0 vote that should be ignored and the 0 side be given victory. Some democracy that is! Glad you aren't controlling elections! Blaming America or the west for libya is frankly stupid because 1. The rest of the world also thought gadaffi should be stopped and 2. Libya is nowhere near as bad today as it was under gadaffi where everyone lived in fear. Unless you lived in libya which I doubt you did you wouldn't know.
In summary you are trying to use libya as another stick to beat america and you are frustrated that no-one is buying into it. Your hatred of america is a bit scary to be honest. I hope you are boycotting all things american especially related to american corporations and being consistant.
You say not one country opposed resolution 1973, but yet again you are failing to mention that 5 (China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, India) abstained, which means it did not have massive International support.
All you are trying to do is lash out and insult people on here, because they question your pro-intervention mentality into the affairs of others countries, and the fact that the violence and chaos seems to escalate and continue long after. Yet you are in a constant state of denial, and think well everything is far better now, nothing to see here, move on mentality. Yet we hear things to the contrary, but you'll have none of it.
So much for bringing peace and stability. Most people in the world are anti-war, but you seem to be pro-intervention, and just because people aren't buying into your deliberate distortion of the facts, doesn't make us anti-American, or have a hatred of America.
People are dictators, and tyrants to the US goverment when it suits their own needs. But just as it was with Joseph Stalin, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, they were allies when it suited. Those are the facts, and you can't deny that. Now it's happening again with this ISIS mess. Back last year Assad was a tyrant and dictator, and he had to go, I'm guessing you were probaly on that bandwagon aswell. Now all of sudden if they bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, it will effectively make them allied with Assad. The hypocrisy is astounding. So do you want to start refuting what I say, or do you want to keep insulting me some more?0 -
realweirdo wrote: »Did you complain once when Gaddafi was doing the raping and killing? Bet you didn't. The rest of your post is tiresome rehashed anti-western nonsense which has no basis in reality especially in relation to Libya. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown because he was "different". He was overthrown because he wanted to slaughter his own people en masse. Deal with that fact.
NATO knocked him out with airpower, the rebels were not strong enough and were on the verge of losing. And they intervened because of their humanitarian conscience? My arse. They oppertunistically jumped in and backed one side in a civil war, and they did so for their own geopolitical objectives which have nothing to do with saving innocent people.0 -
You say not one country opposed resolution 1973, but yet again you are failing to mention that 5 (China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, India) abstained, which means it did not have massive International support.
All you are trying to do is lash out and insult people on here, because they question your pro-intervention mentality into the affairs of others countries, and the fact that the violence and chaos seems to escalate and continue long after. Yet you are in a constant state of denial, and think well everything is far better now, nothing to see here, move on mentality. Yet we hear things to the contrary, but you'll have none of it.
So much for bringing peace and stability. Most people in the world are anti-war, but you seem to be pro-intervention, and just because people aren't buying into your deliberate distortion of the facts, doesn't make us anti-American, or have a hatred of America.
People are dictators, and tyrants to the US goverment when it suits their own needs. But just as it was with Joseph Stalin, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, they were allies when it suited. Those are the facts, and you can't deny that. Now it's happening again with this ISIS mess. Back last year Assad was a tyrant and dictator, and he had to go, I'm guessing you were probaly on that bandwagon aswell. Now all of sudden if they bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, it will effectively make them allied with Assad. The hypocrisy is astounding. So do you want to start refuting what I say, or do you want to keep insulting me some more?
But they said they arent going to be allied with assad. America and britain hate assad. Everyone hates assad. And as i said many times before isis were a deliberate creation of assad so he should be left to deal with them. He created them so let him deal with them. He's probably regretting letting a load of them free now in the early days. Assad has no legitimacy in any case and is no more significant than any other armed and violent group in syria. Live by the sword die by the sword. Assad is a failed dictator in a failed state.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »But they said they arent going to be allied with assad. America and britain hate assad. Everyone hates assad. And as i said many times before isis were a deliberate creation of assad so he should be left to deal with them. He created them so let him deal with them. He's probably regretting letting a load of them free now in the early days. Assad has no legitimacy in any case and is no more significant than any other armed and violent group in syria. Live by the sword die by the sword. Assad is a failed dictator in a failed state.
:pac:0 -
:pac:
True I'm afraid and well documented.
http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/22/why-assad-is-secretly-helping-his-isis-enemies-become-most-powerful-rebel-force-in-syria/As recently as 2012, ISIS was a marginalized movement confined to a small area of Iraq. Then Mr. Assad emptied Sednaya jail near Damascus of some of its most dangerous jihadist prisoners. If he hoped these men would join ISIS and strengthen its leadership, that aspiration was fulfilled. Several figures in the movement’s hierarchy are believed to be former inmates of Syrian prisons, carefully released by the regime.
By last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments.
Having provided ISIS with talented commanders, courtesy of his prison amnesties, and filled its coffers with oil money, Mr. Assad then focused his military campaign on the non-Islamist rebels.
Every town and suburb held by the Free Syrian Army was relentlessly pounded from the air and ground. A year ago, the regime even used poison gas against insurgent strongholds in Damascus.
But ISIS enjoyed a curious degree of immunity from these onslaughts. Until the past few weeks, Syria’s air force had scarcely bothered to bomb the town of Raqqa, which serves as the unofficial capital of ISIS.
“The regime was very happy to see [ISIS] rise and it has helped their narrative that they face an extremist Al-Qaeda type enemy against which all force is justified,” said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
“The evidence stacks up that they were definitely encouraging this sort of movement.”
The signs are ISIS has returned the favour. Instead of trying to bring down Mr. Assad, it has concentrated on fighting non-Islamist rebels. When the movement reached what may prove to be the apex of its military strength this year, ISIS did not try to overthrow the regime. Instead, it invaded northern Iraq — and triggered the current crisis.
Like many Middle Eastern dictators before him, Mr. Assad hopes the West will accept him as the only bulwark against the fanatics whom he has helped.
Put bluntly, he wants to be an arsonist and a firefighter at the same time. The question is whether he will get away with this time-honoured ploy.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »
You have the audacity to accuse me of lying. Yet you lie, mislead and distort every chance you get. You are the only person in the world who must believe that Assad created ISIS. Have you not heard what the Syrian Foreign Minister has said just today, that he wants to US to help fight the ISIS 'terrorists'.
In the article that you posted above it claims
'last year, ISIS had captured oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit, they needed a customer for the oil. Mr. Assad’s regime began buying the oil from the jihadists, so helping to fund the movement, say Western and Middle Eastern governments.
Now I can't believe you'd believe such nonsense. So Assad's Regime bought their own oil off ISIS, an organisation that they have been trying to destroy for years, because I personally believe the United States backed 'Free Syrian Army', and ISIS are the same thing. They are both part of the opposition against Assad. Thereby making ISIS an enemy of the US in Iraq, and an ally in Syria.0 -
Advertisement
-
realweirdo wrote: »That means what exactly??
Its hard to understand what point you are trying to make. Would it be some high minded idea that western corporations and consumerism are behind all the problems in the world today? And if only we all went back to a more simple life of herding sheep on mountains or something like that everything would be ok?
Remove dictators for the betterment of humankind ?0 -
Tell me, do you think the Somalis are better off today or when they were under the regime of Siad Barre? Not free to express themselves or knowing if they will be alive tomorrow because some random militia may choose to kill them today?realweirdo wrote: »You'd choose dictatorship over death? What on earth are you talking about?
Faced with a choice between lawlessness and dictatorship, you'll find that most people will pick the latter and there's good reason for that. This may not sit well with your view of democracy at any cost, but then again, you don't have to make the same choice as those who are in or descending into such scenarios.
Casualties overall, for the rebellion, have been estimated at 25,000. Thing is, they're not done yet and people are still dying as a result of the lack of resolution to the conflict. It's almost moot to discuss casualties that will result from what Western intervention enabled, because we could be seeing them for years to come.So far the recent fighting in Libya has claimed the lives mostly of rebel groups fighting each other which all in all is probably not a bad thing. I'd like some sources from you on civilian deaths recently if possible. So ideally you'd come up with those sources and back your arguments with facts rather than your personal opinion.
Not sure why I'm bothering to even respond though; you've still not responded to my earlier point - any of my earlier points, for that matter. I showed in my last point how you failed to do so, despite your disingenuous claim that you had. So it's quite pointless to engage with you.0 -
I'd much rather live under a dictatorship than a volatile lawlessness where you have no idea what will happen from moment to moment. I'm fed up with these countries and their savagery and lawlessness. Leave them to it.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Tell me, do you think the Somalis are better off today or when they were under the regime of Siad Barre? Not free to express themselves or knowing if they will be alive tomorrow because some random militia may choose to kill them today?
This Said Barre?Human rights abuse allegations
Part of Barre's time in power was characterized by oppressive dictatorial rule, including allegations of persecution, jailing and torture of political opponents and dissidents. The United Nations Development Programme stated that "the 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa."[25] The Africa Watch Committee wrote in a report that "both the urban population and nomads living in the countryside [were] subjected to summary killings, arbitrary arrest, detention in squalid conditions, torture, rape, crippling constraints on freedom of movement and expression and a pattern of psychological intimidation."[26] Amnesty International went on to report that torture methods committed by Barre's National Security Service (NSS) included executions and "beatings while tied in a contorted position, electric shocks, rape of woman prisoners, simulated executions and death threats." [27]
In September 1970, the government introduced the National Security Law No. 54, which granted the NSS the power to arrest and detain indefinitely those who expressed critical views of the government, without ever being brought to trial. It further gave the NSS the power to arrest without a warrant anyone suspected of a crime involving "national security". Article 1 of the law prohibited "acts against the independence, unity or security of the State", and capital punishment was mandatory for anyone convicted of such acts.[28]
From the late 1970s, and onwards Barre faced a shrinking popularity and increased domestic resistance. In response, Barre's elite unit, the Red Berets (Duub Cas), and the paramilitary unit called the Victory Pioneers carried out systematic terror against the Majeerteen, Hawiye, and Isaaq clans.[29] The Red Berets systematically smashed water reservoirs to deny water to the Majeerteen and Isaaq clans and their herds. More than 2,000 members of the Majeerteen clan died of thirst, and an estimated 5,000 Isaaq were killed by the government. Members of the Victory Pioneers also raped large numbers of Majeerteen and Isaaq women, and more than 300,000 Isaaq members fled to Ethiopia.[30][31]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre
Ah yes, the good old days under Siad Barre.
Unfortunately you are making the same mistake as you did with Gaddafi, viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. The further back people look, the more nostalgic they view an era. There would have been no 25,000 dead of Gadaffi had not started a campaign to take back cities that wanted nothing to do with him. NATO involvement or no NATO involvement there would still have been tens of thousands of deaths, if not even more. Cities like Misrata were under a virtual siege where no food was being allowed in or out.0 -
Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?realweirdo wrote: »Ah yes, the good old days under Siad Barre.
Is that what you are seriously suggesting? Are you going to avoid this question too?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?
Is that what you are seriously suggesting? Are you going to avoid this question too?
What question? He was overthrown by internal elements and rebel groups because of his brutal dictatorship. It's not a valid point you are making. History is history, you can't change it, it's going to happen. If a dictator is brutal he's going to get overthrown. It's like crying over spilled milk. If Barre was a nice guy, he wouldn't have been overthrown. The Somalians among themselves decided to overthrow him so they would have to accept the consequences of what happened after that.
Generally in terms of history, people always act with short term interests in mind. If Barre was threathening one group or another, and as was pointed out, he threathened a lot of groups, one of those groups is going to come after him. My answer is complex like most of my answers but the answer is there if you look carefully enough which I doubt you will.
However I think you are suggesting Barre somehow brought "order" to Somalia when in fact like Gaddafi he did nothing of the sort and like Gaddafi p*ssed off so many people with his policies and threats that his overthrow was inevitable. And again to Libya, Gaddafi was a thug. If he was a nice guy he wouldn't have been killed by the Misratans the way he was. After being shelled, starved and bombarded by his forces for several months, their actions were perfectly understable.0 -
It's the sentence with a question mark at the end:realweirdo wrote: »What question?
Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »It's the sentence with a question mark at the end:
Are you suggesting that he and his regime was worse than the failed state, where militias - many composed of religious or ideological extremists, others simply criminal - could randomly kill, rape or steal from you?
You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way. Look at Syria. You say its better for a dictator like Assad to stay in power, that the vacuam that occurs afterwards is worse.
However Assad is slowly and surely in the process of being overthrown and there is going to be a vacuam anyways.
And all without any meaningful western intervention.
All this renders your point about interventions not helping invalid. No intervention in Syria and the country is on the verge of being a failed state. There was no meaningful intervention either in Somalia before Barre was overthrown. And in numerous other countries.
To argue interventions alone cause vacuams is a false one. Non interventions also cause vacuams, usually bigger ones.
As for Gaddafi how many times do I have to tell you he was far worse than what is happening today? The cause of 25,000 dead in 6 months. Thousands dead in his time in power. Instability all across much of africa because of him. Provided the IRA with tons of weapons so they continue their bombing campaigns. Raping of women. Forced prostitution of women in his personal guard. And on and on. I think that pretty much trumps what is happening today in Libya.
That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.0 -
No, that's all you've been doing throughout this thread. Ignoring points made and just repeating yourself. How about you have to courage to respond to a single question for a change?realweirdo wrote: »You are ignoring a lot of my points as well. I will make my point again but in another way.
You are repeating the same arguments. I'm responding to them and then you repeat them, as if somehow my response did not address them or you need not defend them from those responses. Of course you're right in so far as you won't change your point of view, if after all, all you are capable of doing is repeat it. I think you've missed the point of discussion. Preaching, you've mastered though.realweirdo wrote: »That's the last reply I am making to you - we keep repeating the same arguments, at this stage its boring and tiresome and neither of us will change our point of view.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »No, that's all you've been doing throughout this thread. Ignoring points made and just repeating yourself. How about you have to courage to respond to a single question for a change?
I have no interest in responding to completely invalid points and questions. Given that I believe most of your views are based on flawed logic and false premises such as the idea that non intervention always and in all cases triumphs western intervention, I certainly won't be. We have seen how that has turned out in Syria. It's been an utter humanitarian catastrophe, a thousand times worse than Libya, which ultimately renders your points completely null and void.0
Advertisement