A question for the Libya warmongers

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The powers that be obviously have some interest in Libya, otherwise it would be ignored like every other third world sh**thole. And the little drones are so easily filled with blood lust and just follow along. It's just depressing to know that, ultimately, little has changed in the past 70 years.

Ah? I guess that's why nobody wanted to go. And that all of this happened in the very last minutes. All that imperialist powers only realized in the last minutes all the gains they could have in engaging in a war. And who led? France. France who had in the last years signed big contracts on several realms with Gaddafi. UK would have done stuffs like that too. Italy had no interests in seeing Gaddafi going away either since a lot of its oil was guaranteed by him, big contracts with Libya too, a pledge from Gaddafi to stop immigration which becomes a quite hot topic in Europe. Gaddafi might have been going to take back the whole land, then to ensure all those cynical interests to those European powers. And suddenly! When things could have been back to normal! Western powers find it's better to try a totally new situation! And this with a military intervention! Which means millions of euros spent each days! With a war we have no clue how long it could last! How wow, that was some very cynical advantageous reasons to intervene.

lol, frankly.

Sometimes humans are a bit more than money. Especially when you know that the guy who led all of this loves to be asked to be a Zorro, and yeah, he really had things to make forget in term of behaviors. And well, just, politicians are humans too, they might have a bit of compassion too.

And what's the point anyhow? Some people were violently repressed, by a regime that violently repressed them during decades, there was a possibility for the regional powers to intervene, there was chances the intervention works, there was a demand from some people who would be a credible representation (even in the west of the country, they would have made some allegiance to NTC). What more?

I just have trouble taking warmongers seriously when they haven't fought in a war, or aren't going to. It's really easy to talk about this sort of thing when you're just typing away on your keyboard. I would be much more interested to know the opinion of someone who, say, just got back from Afghanistan.

Ah, ok, only soldiers can have an opinion on wars...

Then I guess only military officials should decide when an intervention has to happen. That politicians elected by the people, and of which the decision of an intervention will have in one way or an other heavy consequence on the country, should have to say nothing, not to debate, because they never received a bullet, or something, right?

Maybe there is a point in the fact that this is the total opposite that happens, and that military forces are the less possible involved in politics when they are in function...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I support the creation of an Independent Force to protect civilians against war crimes around the world.

Also, if you're interested in that game, you can make a lot, other interesting one:

What about a no fly zone at the end of December 2008, beginning of January 2009 over Gaza strip?

I'd support.

Oh indeed, all those measures should come with diplomatic efforts before, but the point of some diplomatic efforts can also be to say: 'If you continue, beware'.

That's why the principle of an Independent Force to protect civilians from war crimes would be finner than some states, since it would be politically independent, its only point would be to react to some crimes, just like some firemen intervene against a fire.

Technically it would make a brainstorming for the building of such force and the establishment of its limits, but that may be worth wondering.

It sounds nice in theory but I have a feeling it would end up being dominated by the same governments that voted Libya on the human rights council.

Well, yes, maybe, but whatever if it works. As I said it would take some brainstorming, but that might be worth wondering. Should be done by UN, each country could have a tax about it, and then here we have a totally independent force that immediately react to troubles that threaten citizens. Can be used for war crimes, but also for big humanitarian situations, like we knew in Haiti and Pakistan last year for example, in both cases it was either a mess or a miss, and it would permit to stop to suspect anybody intervening to do it for other purposes than helping, which technically can also be the case. An Independent Force for Civilians. The way it is right now is like if there was a fire in a town, and that the municipal council had to meet, discuss, and decide to send firemen or not, and if a one or several guys of that council find it's better to let burn something because who know it could serve their interest in the other part of the town to let burn say such or such store/company, too bad, we don't call the firemen, and people try to deal with it with baskets...

[afleitch]

Most of the conversation related to a back and forth personal exchange has been deleted.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

By the way, I seriously wonder what position would take currently so-pro-intervention liberals if George W. Bush were still President and decided to join the operation, I remind, that have an UN mandate?

Now, how many of you would now scream about "new Bush war"?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I would have supported a similar measure in Darfur.

[Middle-aged Europe]

By the way, I seriously wonder what position would take currently so-pro-intervention liberals if George W. Bush were still President and decided to join the operation, I remind, that have an UN mandate?

Now, how many of you would now scream about "new Bush war"?

That would also depend on what rhetoric Bush uses and whether he also set himself the goal to limit U.S. participation to a "supporting" role behind France and UK.

What Obama currently does with regards to these two aspects doesn't sound very Bush-like though. Somehow I envision Bush preparing for a full ground invasion right now in order "to bring that terrorist to justice". Libya would also be declared part of the new axis of evil, along with Venezuela and the Gaza Strip.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

[Hash]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Perhaps protesters in Bahrain=Shia=Iran=bad people with nukes

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Where were all of you during the Darfur genocide? Or is this a silly question?

For the record, I support the US invading all "bad countries" including but not limited to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, Palestine, Israel, Syria, and so on and so forth

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

As far as I'm concerned, it's equally disgusting. What this changes to the Libyan issue, I fail to see.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where were all of you during the Darfur genocide? Or is this a silly question?

For the record, I support the US invading all "bad countries" including but not limited to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, Palestine, Israel, Syria, and so on and so forth

Yeah, Abbas is such a murderous tyrant !

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

As far as I'm concerned, it's equally disgusting. What this changes to the Libyan issue, I fail to see.

Suprisingly, this forum war supporters were silent about Bahrain. Double standards?

[Хahar 🤔]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Yes, everyone loves the Saudi government and their support of the Bahraini dictatorship, yes? Your pathetic attempts to insult are only embarrassing to yourself. Upon whom are you trying to get one over?

[GMantis]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Yes, everyone loves the Saudi government and their support of the Bahraini dictatorship, yes? Your pathetic attempts to insult are only embarrassing to yourself. Upon whom are you trying to get one over?

The fact remains that Bahrain was almost completely forgotten here. A situation that is curiously similar to the mainstream media attitude.

[Gustaf]

We're bringing this tired argument AGAIN? I was very opposed to Saudi Arabia's brutal conduct in Bahrain as well.

Really, this line of arguing is very weak.

[Mr. Morden]

Would an air war alone really have had this kind of impact in Darfur?

It seems like Libya was one of the rare cases in which an intervention of this kind could actually work, because: 1) Much of the fighting involved tanks and other heavy equipment that one could bomb from the air.  You can't really do something like this from the air if people are just fighting with machetes.  2) Many of the major population centers are separated by vast distances, so if Qaddafi's forces wanted to move on to the next city, they greatly exposed themselves to attack from the air.

[Silent Hunter]

We're bringing this tired argument AGAIN? I was very opposed to Saudi Arabia's brutal conduct in Bahrain as well.

Really, this line of arguing is very weak.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Yes, everyone loves the Saudi government and their support of the Bahraini dictatorship, yes? Your pathetic attempts to insult are only embarrassing to yourself. Upon whom are you trying to get one over?

I'm merely pointing out that for some strange reason Libya intervention enthusiasts, whose mouths were full of humanitarian and pro-democratic arguments, were silent on Bahrain. Were there long threads on Bahrain? Were there discussions? And, yes, where were your principles, you were so eager to show when it comes to Libya.

No one likes when their BS is called out, so yes, take a chill pill, little friend, and try to be serious for once, instead of screaming about an "insult" like some Victorian girl.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Yes, everyone loves the Saudi government and their support of the Bahraini dictatorship, yes? Your pathetic attempts to insult are only embarrassing to yourself. Upon whom are you trying to get one over?

I'm merely pointing out that for some strange reason Libya intervention enthusiasts, whose mouths were full of humanitarian and pro-democratic arguments, were silent on Bahrain. Were there long threads on Bahrain? Were there discussions? And, yes, where were your principles, you were so eager to show when it comes to Libya.

No one likes when their BS is called out, so yes, take a chill pill, little friend, and try to be serious for once, instead of screaming about an "insult" like some Victorian girl.

You make no sense. Of course everybody here disapproves about the repression in Barhain and would like the regime to be ousted. But are you seriously arguing that we should spend the same amount of time talking about it as we are talking about Libya ?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You make no sense. Of course everybody here disapproves about the repression in Barhain and would like the regime to be ousted. But are you seriously arguing that we should spend the same amount of time talking about it as we are talking about Libya ?

We almost didn't talk about Bahrain at all. I posted one thread on international general discussion, I believe (I'm not going to browse posts from few months to locate it) and I guess I was the only one who had, at some point, Bahrain protest-themed signature.

Of course we were discussing events in Libya for months, because a bloody war was going on for months. But that's not a point. The point is, brutal crackdown of protests in Bahrain by Saudi military went practically unnoticed here and I really don't remember anyone of you to utter a word. Feel free to correct me if you did.

As GMantis pointed out, and I agree, Bahrain was largerly ignored in media in general, which represents larger problem.

(By the way, I found this thread and decided to bump, because we lacked Bahrain example here)

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I always wanted to know why Libya warmongers were deadly silent, when Saudi tanks, with American blessing, were rolling through Bahrain against the people who, after all, just wanted their dictator to go.

Yes, everyone loves the Saudi government and their support of the Bahraini dictatorship, yes? Your pathetic attempts to insult are only embarrassing to yourself. Upon whom are you trying to get one over?

I'm merely pointing out that for some strange reason Libya intervention enthusiasts, whose mouths were full of humanitarian and pro-democratic arguments, were silent on Bahrain. Were there long threads on Bahrain? Were there discussions? And, yes, where were your principles, you were so eager to show when it comes to Libya.

No one likes when their BS is called out, so yes, take a chill pill, little friend, and try to be serious for once, instead of screaming about an "insult" like some Victorian girl.

lol, I'm not sure why this is suddenly boosted right now, but because I might fall in your category of 'Libya warmongers', while I'm also not sure it's worth answering I can't help but doing it:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132146.msg2842960#msg2842960

I guess this message and this whole thread answers to your question when it comes to my personal case, no? The most ironical being that you have been the one who opened this thread...

WHERE THE F**K WHERE YOU WHEN I POSTED ALL THOSE BLOODY MESSAGES ABOUT THE MOVEMENTS IN BAHRAIN???!

Seriously I very irregularly monitored this forum lately but I don't see why this suddenly popped out yesterday. You could have made a better shot by asking it for Syria or Yemen, for which I can give an answer too.

The better question about Libya to me right now seems to rather be:

Where are all those who claimed 'civil war in Libya if foreign intervention!!', right now?

...which is still more ironical, when you look again at who claimed that, and who suddenly pops this out...

Ah, and, if you look at my post in the link I posted you'll have a precise answer to your question as to where everybody else was. It was crazy how fast the thread about it sped up.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All right. I have to admit my error now.

[Lief 🗽]

This is such a stupid argument. If it were possible to intervene on the side of democratic rebels against authoritarian, murderous regimes in every single instance, I would support that. But it's not, obviously, due to political reasons and limited resources. Libya presented a political situation where international support existed and a military/geographical situation where limited air support could significantly aid the rebels. Bahrain/Syria/Yemen does not. So should we not intervene in Libya because we cannot everywhere else as well? No, that's stupid. Better a good but not perfect outcome than nothing at all.

And most of the Libya thread is talking about the Civil War going on there. The vast majority of discussion there took place after the domestic rebellion phase of the war. Things were happening and the situation was changing, so people commented on them. Not really the case in Bahrain.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is such a stupid argument. If it were possible to intervene on the side of democratic rebels against authoritarian, murderous regimes in every single instance, I would support that. But it's not, obviously, due to political reasons and limited resources. Libya presented a political situation where international support existed and a military/geographical situation where limited air support could significantly aid the rebels. Bahrain/Syria/Yemen does not. So should we not intervene in Libya because we cannot everywhere else as well? No, that's stupid. Better a good but not perfect outcome than nothing at all.

And most of the Libya thread is talking about the Civil War going on there. The vast majority of discussion there took place after the domestic rebellion phase of the war. Things were happening and the situation was changing, so people commented on them. Not really the case in Bahrain.

No one is comparing situation in Libya to situation in Bahrain. However, it's clear West did nothing (and I'm not talking about strictly military aspect, of course) in Bahrain case.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Libya presented a political situation where international support existed and a military/geographical situation where limited air support could significantly aid the rebels.

Yeah, those have been important, but the overall important thing to me has been that there was a request for it from people who seemed to have significant legitimacy of representation of the insurrection, and significant signs of a popular support for this amongst the population too. If there isn't at least one of those 2 factors, and rather both, any foreign intervention is disqualified to me.

I haven't seen any of it in Yemen.

In Syria, during the 8 months of protest, there has only been a very few signs that pointed toward it in the very last days. And even it's still not clear, since there are 3 entities in Syria, the NSC, the 'Free Syrian Army', and the protesters. Only the 2nd ones clearly asked for it, the 3rd ones never express a clear voice about it, and the 1st ones asked the 'free army' to stop military violence, but apparently didn't protest when they came to Paris and that Juppé proposed humanitarian corridors, which could include the presence of soldiers on the ground to protect it. Nothing clear so far then, haven't watched the news today though. I'll support anything that comes from a request, that we are able to do, and about which there significant chances that it doesn't bring worse consequences than what's happening right now. All of this seemed present in Libya, then I supported it. In Syria, it only misses significant signs that an intervention would be welcomed so far, if this comes, I'll support it, not sure what would be the best kind of intervention so far.