Believing that the US role in Libya; is and will stay limited, that the coalition has clear limited goals, that it is not war, is like believing that every thing is under control at the Japanese nuke plants and the radiation releases are safe.
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
I think it addressed your "abysmal start" point very well. That's why I bothered.
My posts referred to the lack of coherent objective and clear leadership.
The only mention of these in your article is to agree that they valid criticisms.
Your post also referred to an "abysmal start." I don't think that's what we have here.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor.
The madness was already happening in Libya. Wishing it would stop could work, I suppose. But probably not.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor.
By the way, you should read beyond the first page. Check out Articles 42-47 before you decide what the UN is supposed to be.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor.
The madness was already happening in Libya. Wishing it would stop could work, I suppose. But probably not.
Bob's right.
It creeps me to see folks anguishing over whether the UN's honouring it's charter of principles and due process yada yada when the issues are so f@cking stark and clear that even my three year old daugher can see the right side.
People fighting totalitarianism were dieing. They asked for help. Help arrived late but better than never. It's a messy fucking world. We'll make up the objectives and strategy as we go along - or don't dither until the 11hr next time!
The UN should've kicked out Mugabe when the African league failed to stand up to the mark. It should now kick out Gbagbo. The shit is hitting the fan in Syria and Yemen and other states. Merkel is now loathed more than ever by the German pess for being an equivocating surrender monkey that sides with such auspicious democracy-loving nations as Russia and China.
The UN should stand up for grass roots democratic movements everywhere where brave people are prepared to fight off repression. It's a simple as that. Don't let any one tell you otherwise. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Not intervening in every country where there's a moral imperative for doing so isn't a reason for never intervening atall. I'd rather patchy, imperfect, hypocritical intervention than none atall. Chomsky can twist and turn in his sleep as much as he likes.
The assumption that I haven't read beyond the first page -more cheap shots that you can't seem to move beyond.
The role of the UN, its effectiveness, etc. have been diminishing for a long time. Amongst other things, its founding mandates were to stop wars and encourage dialogue. These are just nice ideas at this point.
What creeps me is people talking from their computers about what they prefer and what is best like it was a boardgame and not about real people.
I think it'll be a clusterfuck after this, so I'm going to dip and just say I hope for as few bodies as possible and some sort of long-term plan to help Libya help itself get back on its feet.
The assumption that I haven't read beyond the first page -more cheap shots that you can't seem to move beyond.
I don't think it was a cheap shot in any way. You presented a link to the charter in order to support your claim that this current action is the kind of thing the UN is supposed to prevent. That's untrue as shown by the charter itself. I think assuming that you hadn't read those portions of the charter that I referred to is a very strong assumption, because if it isn't true then you're just not making any sense when you say:
"No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor. "
If it's not what the UN should be doing someone really screwed up by providing for it in the charter.
I think it addressed your "abysmal start" point very well. That's why I bothered.
My posts referred to the lack of coherent objective and clear leadership.
The only mention of these in your article is to agree that they valid criticisms.
Your post also referred to an "abysmal start." I don't think that's what we have here.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
Abstract? Hardly - these are exactly the types of things that determine how many live and die.
Right now a soldier being deployed to Libya (and their family) has no idea if they will be there two days or two years. If only they had your wisdom to know that their concerns in this regard are 'abstract'.
I never said anything about lives not being saved, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me. If there were clear goals and effective leadership, maybe they would have acted a month ago and saved thousands of lives and stopped Khadafy from importing mercenaries and weapons.
What creeps me is people talking from their computers about what they prefer and what is best like it was a boardgame and not about real people..
Condescension of the year award. I thought it was fake blood. Highly conceited too to presume that when you yourself write from your computer in font-line Toronto or wherever, you are somehow better placed to weigh up the value and cost of human life than someone with a different opinion. As much as being pro-intervention doesn't automatically make you a cowboy, being against it doesn't automatically make you more measured, attuned and worldy-wise.
Right now a soldier being deployed to Libya (and their family) has no idea if they will be there two days or two years. If only they had your wisdom to know that their concerns in this regard are 'abstract'.
I never said anything about lives not being saved, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me. If there were clear goals and effective leadership, maybe they would have acted a month ago and saved thousands of lives and stopped Khadafy from importing mercenaries and weapons.
But there I go again with my 'abstract' concerns.
Yeah, there you go again.
You know who had "clear goals" and "effective leadership"? Hitler, when he invaded Poland in 1939. How'd that work out for everyone concerned?
How common are wars where a soldier can set the alarm on his Blackberry ahead of time to go off at the end of his deployment, anyway? I'm unfamiliar with this sort of conflict.
People can't even get record reissues out on schedule and yet they expect wars to be run on timetables by omniscient overseers.
Right now a soldier being deployed to Libya (and their family) has no idea if they will be there two days or two years. If only they had your wisdom to know that their concerns in this regard are 'abstract'.
I never said anything about lives not being saved, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me. If there were clear goals and effective leadership, maybe they would have acted a month ago and saved thousands of lives and stopped Khadafy from importing mercenaries and weapons.
But there I go again with my 'abstract' concerns.
Yeah, there you go again.
You know who had "clear goals" and "effective leadership"? Hitler, when he invaded Poland in 1939. How'd that work out for everyone concerned?
How common are wars where a soldier can set the alarm on his Blackberry ahead of time to go off at the end of his deployment, anyway? I'm unfamiliar with this sort of conflict.
People can't even get record reissues out on schedule and yet they expect wars to be run on timetables by omniscient overseers.
So...
Wars are best fought with nobody in command, for no particular reason and no way of knowing when it's over. Otherwise, it's like Hitler all over again.
"He told me that he had been in power for 25 years at that time, and that he did not want the young people of his nation to see him as an old man," Dr. Liacyr Ribeiro recalled. "I recommended a facelift, but he refused."
The secretive four-hour procedure in 1995 was done, at Gadhafi's insistence, with local anesthesia because he wanted to remain alert. Midway through, the Libyan leader stopped to have a hamburger.
Right now a soldier being deployed to Libya (and their family) has no idea if they will be there two days or two years. If only they had your wisdom to know that their concerns in this regard are 'abstract'.
I never said anything about lives not being saved, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me. If there were clear goals and effective leadership, maybe they would have acted a month ago and saved thousands of lives and stopped Khadafy from importing mercenaries and weapons.
But there I go again with my 'abstract' concerns.
Yeah, there you go again.
You know who had "clear goals" and "effective leadership"? Hitler, when he invaded Poland in 1939. How'd that work out for everyone concerned?
How common are wars where a soldier can set the alarm on his Blackberry ahead of time to go off at the end of his deployment, anyway? I'm unfamiliar with this sort of conflict.
People can't even get record reissues out on schedule and yet they expect wars to be run on timetables by omniscient overseers.
So...
Wars are best fought with nobody in command, for no particular reason and no way of knowing when it's over. Otherwise, it's like Hitler all over again.
Gotcha.
No, that's not it. But he was in charge and had a clear goal, so I figured you'd approve of his operation.
I was using your own stated criteria, so I don't see where your complaint lies.
I get it.
Some people think that the potential for helping to create a free and fair Libya out weighs the potential for all kinds of problems.
Some people think that the potential for all kinds of problems out weighs the potential for a free and fair Libya.
Both sides have points.
I am all for an all out attack on Libya just as soon as we are done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, have crushed Al Qaeda and have balanced the budget.
I get it.
Some people think that the potential for helping to create a free and fair Libya out weighs the potential for all kinds of problems.
Some people think that the potential for all kinds of problems out weighs the potential for a free and fair Libya.
Both sides have points.
I am all for an all out attack on Libya just as soon as we are done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, have crushed Al Qaeda and have balanced the budget.
But that's just me.
We won't balance the budget in my lifetime.
We should be done in Iraq and Afghanistan already, and Pakistan, too.
I'm not for "an all out attack on Libya." An all out attack would be nuts.
I think there are very good reasons for picking this particular spot to intervene in, and I hope it succeeds. It might not, of course, but as I mentioned above, it's not an exact science any more than reissuing records is.
I get it.
Some people think that the potential for helping to create a free and fair Libya out weighs the potential for all kinds of problems.
Some people think that the potential for all kinds of problems out weighs the potential for a free and fair Libya.
Both sides have points.
I am all for an all out attack on Libya just as soon as we are done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, have crushed Al Qaeda and have balanced the budget.
But that's just me.
We won't balance the budget in my lifetime.
We should be done in Iraq and Afghanistan already, and Pakistan, too.
I'm not for "an all out attack on Libya." An all out attack would be nuts.
I think there are very good reasons for picking this particular spot to intervene in, and I hope it succeeds. It might not, of course, but as I mentioned above, it's not an exact science any more than reissuing records is.
I hope it works out too.
The budget was balanced just 10 years ago. No reason it should not be balanced again.
What creeps me is people talking from their computers about what they prefer and what is best like it was a boardgame and not about real people..
Condescension of the year award. I thought it was fake blood. Highly conceited too to presume that when you yourself write from your computer in font-line Toronto or wherever, you are somehow better placed to weigh up the value and cost of human life than someone with a different opinion. As much as being pro-intervention doesn't automatically make you a cowboy, being against it doesn't automatically make you more measured, attuned and worldy-wise.
lmho - first two sentences didn't suffice as first posted? Had to come back and put me in my place with a few more jabs?
What creeps me is people talking from their computers about what they prefer and what is best like it was a boardgame and not about real people..
Condescension of the year award. I thought it was fake blood. Highly conceited too to presume that when you yourself write from your computer in font-line Toronto or wherever, you are somehow better placed to weigh up the value and cost of human life than someone with a different opinion. As much as being pro-intervention doesn't automatically make you a cowboy, being against it doesn't automatically make you more measured, attuned and worldy-wise.
lmho - first two sentences didn't suffice as first posted? Had to come back and put me in my place with a few more jabs?
Comments
Clinton and Bosnia?
A lot of Libyans seem to disagree, but what do they know?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1
Last night I had the pleasure of meeting Rom??o Dallaire and hearing him speak for over 3 hours. Wish he, or someone like him was running things.
Once again you've posted a 'response' that doesn't address my point - why do you bother?
I think it addressed your "abysmal start" point very well. That's why I bothered.
My posts referred to the lack of coherent objective and clear leadership.
The only mention of these in your article is to agree that they valid criticisms.
Your post also referred to an "abysmal start." I don't think that's what we have here.
I think it's beyond funny that you're placing abstracts like "coherent objective" and "clear leadership" on a pedestal far above the reality of the situation, which is that this intervention stopped a slaughter.
And started another.
This exchange is pretty brutal so I step in against better judgement, but that you think dropping bombs on people without a goal in mind and no accountability is not that important is nowhere near funny.
I don't agree with the "no goal" or "no accountability" bits. I do agree that dropping bombs on people is nowhere near funny.
But dropping bombs on people to stop them from dropping bombs on other people is okay with me. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be doing.
No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor.
The madness was already happening in Libya. Wishing it would stop could work, I suppose. But probably not.
So true.
THIS.
(...is my early nominee for Best Strawman Burning of 2011)
By the way, you should read beyond the first page. Check out Articles 42-47 before you decide what the UN is supposed to be.
Bob's right.
It creeps me to see folks anguishing over whether the UN's honouring it's charter of principles and due process yada yada when the issues are so f@cking stark and clear that even my three year old daugher can see the right side.
People fighting totalitarianism were dieing. They asked for help. Help arrived late but better than never. It's a messy fucking world. We'll make up the objectives and strategy as we go along - or don't dither until the 11hr next time!
The UN should've kicked out Mugabe when the African league failed to stand up to the mark. It should now kick out Gbagbo. The shit is hitting the fan in Syria and Yemen and other states. Merkel is now loathed more than ever by the German pess for being an equivocating surrender monkey that sides with such auspicious democracy-loving nations as Russia and China.
The UN should stand up for grass roots democratic movements everywhere where brave people are prepared to fight off repression. It's a simple as that. Don't let any one tell you otherwise. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Not intervening in every country where there's a moral imperative for doing so isn't a reason for never intervening atall. I'd rather patchy, imperfect, hypocritical intervention than none atall. Chomsky can twist and turn in his sleep as much as he likes.
The role of the UN, its effectiveness, etc. have been diminishing for a long time. Amongst other things, its founding mandates were to stop wars and encourage dialogue. These are just nice ideas at this point.
What creeps me is people talking from their computers about what they prefer and what is best like it was a boardgame and not about real people.
I think it'll be a clusterfuck after this, so I'm going to dip and just say I hope for as few bodies as possible and some sort of long-term plan to help Libya help itself get back on its feet.
I don't think it was a cheap shot in any way. You presented a link to the charter in order to support your claim that this current action is the kind of thing the UN is supposed to prevent. That's untrue as shown by the charter itself. I think assuming that you hadn't read those portions of the charter that I referred to is a very strong assumption, because if it isn't true then you're just not making any sense when you say:
"No. It is exactly the kind of thing the UN should not be doing.
The UN is supposed to be the antidote to the madness, not the purveyor. "
If it's not what the UN should be doing someone really screwed up by providing for it in the charter.
Abstract? Hardly - these are exactly the types of things that determine how many live and die.
Right now a soldier being deployed to Libya (and their family) has no idea if they will be there two days or two years. If only they had your wisdom to know that their concerns in this regard are 'abstract'.
I never said anything about lives not being saved, so I don't know why you're trying to argue that point with me. If there were clear goals and effective leadership, maybe they would have acted a month ago and saved thousands of lives and stopped Khadafy from importing mercenaries and weapons.
But there I go again with my 'abstract' concerns.
Condescension of the year award. I thought it was fake blood. Highly conceited too to presume that when you yourself write from your computer in font-line Toronto or wherever, you are somehow better placed to weigh up the value and cost of human life than someone with a different opinion. As much as being pro-intervention doesn't automatically make you a cowboy, being against it doesn't automatically make you more measured, attuned and worldy-wise.
Yeah, there you go again.
You know who had "clear goals" and "effective leadership"? Hitler, when he invaded Poland in 1939. How'd that work out for everyone concerned?
How common are wars where a soldier can set the alarm on his Blackberry ahead of time to go off at the end of his deployment, anyway? I'm unfamiliar with this sort of conflict.
People can't even get record reissues out on schedule and yet they expect wars to be run on timetables by omniscient overseers.
So...
Wars are best fought with nobody in command, for no particular reason and no way of knowing when it's over. Otherwise, it's like Hitler all over again.
Gotcha.
"He told me that he had been in power for 25 years at that time, and that he did not want the young people of his nation to see him as an old man," Dr. Liacyr Ribeiro recalled. "I recommended a facelift, but he refused."
The secretive four-hour procedure in 1995 was done, at Gadhafi's insistence, with local anesthesia because he wanted to remain alert. Midway through, the Libyan leader stopped to have a hamburger.
No, that's not it. But he was in charge and had a clear goal, so I figured you'd approve of his operation.
I was using your own stated criteria, so I don't see where your complaint lies.
Some people think that the potential for helping to create a free and fair Libya out weighs the potential for all kinds of problems.
Some people think that the potential for all kinds of problems out weighs the potential for a free and fair Libya.
Both sides have points.
I am all for an all out attack on Libya just as soon as we are done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, have crushed Al Qaeda and have balanced the budget.
But that's just me.
We won't balance the budget in my lifetime.
We should be done in Iraq and Afghanistan already, and Pakistan, too.
I'm not for "an all out attack on Libya." An all out attack would be nuts.
I think there are very good reasons for picking this particular spot to intervene in, and I hope it succeeds. It might not, of course, but as I mentioned above, it's not an exact science any more than reissuing records is.
I hope it works out too.
The budget was balanced just 10 years ago. No reason it should not be balanced again.
lmho - first two sentences didn't suffice as first posted? Had to come back and put me in my place with a few more jabs?