toldailytopic: Libya and Gaddafi: How should the world respond to the events happenin

[Squishes]

Is the US government?Haven't I already said this? A neighbouring nation that sees injustice enacted upon a people by its government is morally obliged to intervene in appropriate fashion.

Ok, so the only people who can rightly start a war is a neighboring country when a different country's government is acting unjustly towards their citizens? No matter what is happening, the citizens of a country should never force out existing government?

How do you not know this? :idunno:

If you don't know why you are saying something, then you probably shouldn't be very forceful about your opinion. I sincerely want to know where you get your moral rules concerning the citizen and the state.

 

[Stripe]

Ok, so the only people who can rightly start a war is a neighboring country when a different country's government is acting unjustly towards their citizens?

Nope.

No matter what is happening, the citizens of a country should never force out existing government?

:think:

Pretty much. But I guess that's what happens almost everywhere once in 3 or 4 years. Democracy - institutionalised revolution. :chuckle:

If you don't know why you are saying something, then you probably shouldn't be very forceful about your opinion.

Who's being forceful and who doesn't know why they are saying something?

I sincerely want to know where you get your moral rules concerning the citizen and the state.

Where do you get your morals?

 

[Squishes]

Nope.

Then who, and when?

:think:

Pretty much. But I guess that's what happens almost everywhere once in 3 or 4 years. Democracy - institutionalised revolution. :chuckle:

But in some of these countries, there is no democracy, or at least it is so rigged that voting is unlikely to make any substantive changes.

Who's being forceful and who doesn't know why they are saying something?

I asked you something, and your reply was more or less an "I don't know". Do you have a more rigorous reply?

Where do you get your morals?

From my genes (roughly speaking), from game theory and from the environment. Overly simplistic, but enough for you to get the picture.

Will you answer my question now?

 

[coulter4president]

i dont watch TV

ignorance is bliss

i am curious about what's going on, though... time to get a newspaper..

but they're all so LIBERAL!!!

hmmm....:think:

 

[Stripe]

Then who, and when? :think:

Well, dang. There's no one rule that determines what is and what is not a just war! Any number of reasons might justify any nation declaring war on another.

But in some of these countries, there is no democracy.

So? :idunno:

I asked you something, and your reply was more or less an "I don't know". Do you have a more rigorous reply?

I asked you the same question and got no response. :idunno:

From my genes (roughly speaking), from game theory and from the environment. Overly simplistic, but enough for you to get the picture. Will you answer my question now?

Nope. When you have a sensible grasp on where morals come from we might be able to have a rational discussion on that topic. Right now I am justified in saying absolutely anything as a source for morality.

Genes. :chuckle:

:mock: Squishes.

 

[Squishes]

Well, dang. There's no one rule that determines what is and what is not a just war! Any number of reasons might justify any nation declaring war on another.

What about revolutions? When are they justified?

So? :idunno:

So then there could never be a democratic revolution. Are the citizens then stuck?

I asked you the same question and got no response. :idunno:

No; you asked me "how do I not know this?", which is pretty much an unanswerable question. You could ask me what I believe instead, but you didn't. I'll just give my answer and then you can give yours without any further delay: revolutions are never justified in a moral sense of justification, because there is no such thing as moral justification. The best we can do is explain why a revolution occurred.

I am a moral non-realist, but I suspect you are not.

Nope. When you have a sensible grasp on where morals come from we might be able to have a rational discussion on that topic. Right now I am justified in saying absolutely anything as a source for morality.

I don't see why you are being so difficult. I am very open about my beliefs on morality, even though those views are untenable for most. I suspect that most people who think very hard about these issues have similar views to me, but most laypeople think that there are mind-independent moral properties. Do you think that? And if so, how do you know when a revolution is justified? Is it a moral intuition or what?

 

[Skavau]

In your eyes, perhaps. Luckily it does not ultimately matter if what you do that is right is viewed as wrong by others.

There's been a mishap in communication here. A government certainly can intervene rightfully in an armed uprising (though whether or not failure to do so makes it 'mocked' doesn't matter) - but if all other efforts of recognition by protesters have been exhausted (with many deaths, detentions and curfews) then what other option do they have?

Would you (on this point) think that a government was acting wrongly if it quashed a protest by violence?

Doublespeak would be if those two affairs were the same thing. They aren't.

They are different - but what is wrong with arming the resistance of a dictatorship? What if that is the only way the international community would get invovled?

It was a Lybian effort. Now it's an international effort which is being called a "Libyan effort".

Well, as it stands, we are not actually directly helping them march into Tripoli. In any case, whether it be a solo Libyan effort or international effort doesn't mean much to me.

It might be common practice that nations do not act until the situation has gotten out of control, but it need not be inevitable.

Since we seem to have a policy of complete non-assistance towards the oppressed of all tyrants - it would take an uprising (which you condemn) for us to even respond. So what do you suggest to those who have no voice, cannot protest, cannot even announce that they support the opposition? What options do they have?

Depends on the situation. Propoer authority sees parents over children. Husband over wife. Police over communities. Judges over criminals. Governments over nations. And God over government.

So, apparently, the citizens of nation do not have the right to revolt but other nations do have the right to intervene if the government begins merciless killing. In your legalistic argument you ironicly negate the concept of state self-determination.

Also "God over government". Do you think all governments should be theocratic in nature?

No, I'm not. People are fully justified in demonstration, vocal opposition and self defence in any situation.

And what if all that is avaliable to you is self-defence? You can't protest or speak out(you'll be shot, or 'removed').

And I'm sure a thief doesn't care that he is stealing someone else's money.

Given that most of these dictatorships came from coups, or were supported by the USA or UK some time ago (and have been propped us since then) - I don't think the comparison is valid.

Yep.

So, your definition of a "proper authority" in this context is simply whoever runs the country. And they may do what they please (according to you) and never would it be justifiable for the citizens to rebuke them.

 

[Stripe]

What about revolutions? When are they justified?

People never have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government.

So then there could never be a democratic revolution.

Of course there could.

:think: What's a "democratic" revolution. One where they vote on whose head they should cut off first?

Are the citizens then stuck?

No. What would make you imagine that?

there is no such thing as moral justification.

Then you'll have no problem with the morality of my ideas, right. :idunno:

I am a moral non-realist, but I suspect you are not.

I'm guessing it's all in your mind, right? :chuckle:

I don't see why you are being so difficult.

Where have I been difficult?

how do you know when a revolution is justified? Is it a moral intuition or what?

Nothing I say is going to be of any value to you.

There's been a mishap in communication here.

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure it's all because of my Kiwi accent.

A government certainly can intervene rightfully in an armed uprising (though whether or not failure to do so makes it 'mocked' doesn't matter) - but if all other efforts of recognition by protesters have been exhausted (with many deaths, detentions and curfews) then what other option do they have?

They could try again. :idunno:

Would you (on this point) think that a government was acting wrongly if it quashed a protest by violence?

On what point? If it's a peaceful protest and the gov't starts shooting people then there should be real moral outrage. And if it turns out this sort of carry-on is institutional then the neighbours need to start thinking about doing something about it. They should do so not because of their genes or some game theory, but because they are morally obliged to step into the breach for people who cannot help themselves.

Offering to give rabble-rousers guns so they can continue to perpetrate their illegal activities is a perverse replacement for what might be a nation's finest hour.

They are different - but what is wrong with arming the resistance of a dictatorship? What if that is the only way the international community would get invovled?

Because of the precedent it sets. If a government knows that it will get beaten senseless by its neighbours if it starts oppressing its people then it is unlikely to go bad very quickly. If the aid solution is, "We'll send guns" it removes responsibility and accountability. When civilians are given weapons and encouraged to overthrow a government it teaches a disrespect for proper authority.

The right people should be doing the work they are responsible for. If you have guns, use them. Don't hand them out willy-nilly and then try and claim some sort of moral high ground.

Since we seem to have a policy of complete non-assistance towards the oppressed of all tyrants

What are you talking about?

it would take an uprising (which you condemn) for us to even respond.

:squint: What?!

So what do you suggest to those who have no voice, cannot protest, cannot even announce that they support the opposition? What options do they have?

They can use their voice. They can protest. They can proclaim their desire for justice.

So, apparently, the citizens of nation do not have the right to revolt but other nations do have the right to intervene if the government begins merciless killing. In your legalistic argument you ironicly negate the concept of state self-determination.

What? The state determined that it would kill off its citizens. What was not self-determined about that?

You really need to think things through a bit better. lain:

Also "God over government". Do you think all governments should be theocratic in nature?

Uh, you don't have to be theocratic in order for God to be in authority over you, just as you don't have to hold the beliefs of your father in order for him to be in authority over you.

And what if all that is avaliable to you is self-defence? You can't protest or speak out(you'll be shot, or 'removed').

People can be pretty smart when they want to be. I'm sure they'll think of something. :idunno:

Given that most of these dictatorships came from coups, or were supported by the USA or UK some time ago (and have been propped us since then) - I don't think the comparison is valid.

And you think this time it'll be different?

So, your definition of a "proper authority" in this context is simply whoever runs the country. And they may do what they please (according to you) and never would it be justifiable for the citizens to rebuke them.

Of course their citizens can rebuke them! You're quoting me, but whose posts are you reading? :squint:

 

[Skavau]

They could try again.

So your only suggestion to all would-be protestors under dictatorial regimes is to just keep trying to protest and keep getting shot?

On what point? If it's a peaceful protest and the gov't starts shooting people then there should be real moral outrage. And if it turns out this sort of carry-on is institutional then the neighbours need to start thinking about doing something about it.

And if they won't? (Which we know they won't, at least until it becomes civil war).

Also, what if your neighbours happen to be third-world or in cahoots with the dictatorship itself?

They should do so not because of their genes or some game theory, but because they are morally obliged to step into the breach for people who cannot help themselves.

But the people who cannot help themselves actually can. You just refuse to recognition armed resistance as valid.

Offering to give rabble-rousers guns so they can continue to perpetrate their illegal activities is a perverse replacement for what might be a nation's finest hour.

You think a nation's finest hour is better served by foreign occupation or invasion (on their behalf) rather than a home-grown overthrowing of their dictator? I would argue the complete opposite and add that we are stepping in because it is apparent that in this war, the rebels of libya may not win it.

Because of the precedent it sets. If a government knows that it will get beaten senseless by its neighbours if it starts oppressing its people then it is unlikely to go bad very quickly.

I agree. I don't disagree. Your point here? Both the international community and the oppressed should both work to overthrow dictators slaughtering and/or oppressing its inhabitants.

If the aid solution is, "We'll send guns" it removes responsibility and accountability. When civilians are given weapons and encouraged to overthrow a government it teaches a disrespect for proper authority.

What "proper authority"? To the protesters and rebels, their leadership has no credibility. It certainly wouldn't have earned any popular support. It would rule purely by force it gained through a coup. Why should that authority have respect or even recognition?

The right people should be doing the work they are responsible for. If you have guns, use them. Don't hand them out willy-nilly and then try and claim some sort of moral high ground.

From that perspective, I agree. But of course, I don't remotely agree with the notion that only foreign invaders (local or otherwise) should be the only forces capable of intervening. I could just as meaninglessly state that foreign nations invading the nation preaches disrespect to their leadership and sovereignty. What would be the key difference between that and your argument?

What are you talking about?

As it stands now, we (that is the free world) have a policy of complete non-assistance to those living under tyrants until they begin a violent uprisal. It would necessarily require a violent uprising before foreign powers got involved.

They can use their voice. They can protest. They can proclaim their desire for justice.

And they should die for it?

What? The state determined that it would kill off its citizens. What was not self-determined about that?

But you insist that when a state does that, other states should merrily intervene. So for all your legalism, you freely forget the notion of 'self-determination' as it concerns states.

Uh, you don't have to be theocratic in order for God to be in authority over you, just as you don't have to hold the beliefs of your father in order for him to be in authority over you.

Do you think all states should agree with the notion of being accountable to 'God'?

People can be pretty smart when they want to be. I'm sure they'll think of something.

If this isn't saying "I don't know", I don't know what is. So you have no advice whatsoever for the downtrodden of the world. They can't protest, voice their opinion, or let people even know their affiliation - and you just expect them to stick with their lives being controlled?

And you think this time it'll be different?

Well, that depends on the outcome of the anti-government movements. It is our hands (if they succeed) to push for secular democracy.

Of course their citizens can rebuke them! You're quoting me, but whose posts are you reading?

No they can't. They can't free themselves through revolution. You've refused them the right to do that.

 

[Stripe]

So your only suggestion to all would-be protestors under dictatorial regimes is to just keep trying to protest and keep getting shot?

No.

And if they won't? (Which we know they won't, at least until it becomes civil war). Also, what if your neighbours happen to be third-world or in cahoots with the dictatorship itself?

Use your imagination. What do you think should happen?

But the people who cannot help themselves actually can. You just refuse to recognition armed resistance as valid.

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do it.

You think a nation's finest hour is better served by foreign occupation or invasion (on their behalf) rather than a home-grown overthrowing of their dictator?

Why do you speak like this? You're so weird! A nation can find honour and glory in declaring war upon an evil neighbouring government. It can find no glory in giving guns to rebels and letting weaker people do their job for them.

I would argue the complete opposite and add that we are stepping in because it is apparent that in this war, the rebels of libya may not win it.

AND NOR SHOULD THEY! :thumb:

I agree. I don't disagree. Your point here? Both the international community and the oppressed should both work to overthrow dictators slaughtering and/or oppressing its inhabitants.

:think: I guess the citizens of a nation could join forces with an invading army.

What "proper authority"? To the protesters and rebels, their leadership has no credibility.

And some sons hate their fathers. :idunno:

It certainly wouldn't have earned any popular support. It would rule purely by force it gained through a coup. Why should that authority have respect or even recognition?

It need not have respect. It must have recognition. If it is not recognised, how can the good army drop bombs on it?

From that perspective, I agree. But of course, I don't remotely agree with the notion that only foreign invaders (local or otherwise) should be the only forces capable of intervening. I could just as meaninglessly state that foreign nations invading the nation preaches disrespect to their leadership and sovereignty. What would be the key difference between that and your argument?

Mine's not stupid?

As it stands now, we (that is the free world) have a policy of complete non-assistance to those living under tyrants until they begin a violent uprisal. It would necessarily require a violent uprising before foreign powers got involved.

Which is stupid and evil. Nations should all be more willing to sever ties, impose bans or invade in order to stop evil being perpetrated by foreign nations on their people.

And they should die for it?

No. They should live forever.

But you insist that when a state does that, other states should merrily intervene. So for all your legalism, you freely forget the notion of 'self-determination' as it concerns states.

I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. One state determines that it wishes to kill people. Another state decides to put a stop to that practice. Which state is it that you think is not self-determining?

Do you think all states should agree with the notion of being accountable to 'God'?

Sure, they should. But that's not likely to ever happen.

If this isn't saying "I don't know", I don't know what is. So you have no advice whatsoever for the downtrodden of the world. They can't protest, voice their opinion, or let people even know their affiliation - and you just expect them to stick with their lives being controlled?

Why do you keep saying this? People can always protest. People can always voice their opinion. People can always declare their affiliation.

Well, that depends on the outcome of the anti-government movements. It is our hands (if they succeed) to push for secular democracy.

Secular democracy? You mean like in Nazi Germany?

And it's not in our hands. It\s in the hands of the people we gave our guns to.

No they can't. They can't free themselves through revolution. You've refused them the right to do that.

Dude, a rebuke and a revolution are two very different concepts. People always have the capacity and right to rebuke. People usually don't have the capacity to revolt and never have the right. You want to give them both the capacity and the right instead of just doing the job yourself.

 

[kmoney]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...a-attack-an-impeachable-offense-for-obama.php


Kucinich says that Obama taking action in Libya is an impeachable offense. :think:

 

[Skavau]

No.

So what do you suggest then?

Use your imagination. What do you think should happen?

Well, you should know now that I would support the population rising up and taking it back for themselves through force.

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do it.

And too many nations have no choice but to do it (or continue living non-lives under supervision).

Why do you speak like this? You're so weird! A nation can find honour and glory in declaring war upon an evil neighbouring government. It can find no glory in giving guns to rebels and letting weaker people do their job for them.

I'm not referring to the neighbouring nation - I'm referring to the oppressed nation. It would have been so much sweeter and the finest hour for the Libyan rebels and Libya itself if they had deposed of Gaddafi without foreign assistance. Now of course if they do succeed then it will be with foreign assistance, and not such a finest hour.

AND NOR SHOULD THEY!

You'd rather Gaddafi continue his 40 year reign?

I guess the citizens of a nation could join forces with an invading army.

Uh, they could - but then that'd be just foreign forces coming in and helping the citizens revolt. Which is what you don't want.

And some sons hate their fathers.

Are you even trying or are you just trolling? This is a completely facile comparison.

It need not have respect. It must have recognition. If it is not recognised, how can the good army drop bombs on it?

You know what I mean by 'recognition'. Stop being obtuse.

Mine's not stupid?

Stop trolling. You don't want the citizens of an oppressed nation to take up arms against their oppressors because it might "disrespect" their leadership but you have no problem with neighbouring countries invading and "disrespecting" their leadership. This is more doublethink.

Which is stupid and evil. Nations should all be more willing to sever ties, impose bans or invade in order to stop evil being perpetrated by foreign nations on their people.

Yes they should. But they don't. So what do you propose for those suffering?

No. They should live forever.

Another facile comment.

I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. One state determines that it wishes to kill people. Another state decides to put a stop to that practice. Which state is it that you think is not self-determining?

Ironicly, I don't think you know what 'self-determination' means. It means states have the right to run their affairs as they please and that no foreign power should get involved. By gripping tight of legalism you in fact negate one of the most precious legalisms of the most modern times, held true by isolationists, non-interventionists and even some interventionists themselves.

Sure, they should. But that's not likely to ever happen.

A good thing to.

Why do you keep saying this? People can always protest. People can always voice their opinion. People can always declare their affiliation.

Do you have Alzheimer's or selective memory problems? I asked you directly what those who cannot protest, cannot speak out and cannot even be known to support the opposition should do and you responded by saying:

"People can be pretty smart when they want to be. I'm sure they'll think of something."

It is as close as a concession towards "I don't know" as there could ever be.

Secular democracy? You mean like in Nazi Germany?

Don't be childish. You're just being stupid now. Nazi Germany was neither secular nor democratic.

And it's not in our hands. It\s in the hands of the people we gave our guns to.

Of course, but we should exert as much influence as possible to ensure that a pseudo-Islamic state does not arise.

Dude, a rebuke and a revolution are two very different concepts. People always have the capacity and right to rebuke. People usually don't have the capacity to revolt and never have the right. You want to give them both the capacity and the right instead of just doing the job yourself.

Apparently you have an issue with terms used in different contexts. It seems to confuse you to no end. In any case, I was using the term rebuke in the context of revolution, uprising etc. So to please your semantics I will revise my original statement:

"So, your definition of a "proper authority" in this context is simply whoever runs the country. And they may do what they please (according to you) and never would it be justifiable for the citizens to revolt. "

 

[Stripe]

You'd rather Gaddafi continue his 40 year reign?

As opposed to an armed rebellion that sets up a new leader? Absolutely!

Ironicly, I don't think you know what 'self-determination' means. It means states have the right to run their affairs as they please and that no foreign power should get involved. By gripping tight of legalism you in fact negate one of the most precious legalisms of the most modern times, held true by isolationists, non-interventionists and even some interventionists themselves.

I do, however, believe that a nation is morally obliged to act against another nation in certain situations. Thus self-determination cannot hold the sacred high ground with me that you wish it did.

Do you have Alzheimer's or selective memory problems?

No, do you?

I asked you directly what those who cannot protest, cannot speak out and cannot even be known to support the opposition should do and you responded by saying: "People can be pretty smart when they want to be. I'm sure they'll think of something." It is as close as a concession towards "I don't know" as there could ever be.

Actually, I responded with what you put in the quote tags to that, not with what you put in the quote marks.

Don't be childish. You're just being stupid now. Nazi Germany was neither secular nor democratic.

Actually, it was both.

Of course, but we should exert as much influence as possible to ensure that a pseudo-Islamic state does not arise.

Good luck with that. lain:

"So, your definition of a "proper authority" in this context is simply whoever runs the country. And they may do what they please (according to you) and never would it be justifiable for the citizens to revolt. "

Right. Just like a son has no right to punish his father.

 

[Skavau]

I do, however, believe that a nation is morally obliged to act against another nation in certain situations. Thus self-determination cannot hold the sacred high ground with me that you wish it did.

But not its citizens... what a joke.

Actually, I responded with what you put in the quote tags to that, not with what you put in the quote marks.

In any case, you basically admitted you don't have any advice or information for oppressed people unable to protest or speak out at all.

Actually, it was both.

[citation needed]

Please, provide supporting evidence.

Right. Just like a son has no right to punish his father.

What a stupid and inane comparison. The state we live in is not our father, nor remotely comparable to it and nor are we its children. The Libyan people would (if we continue this analogy) be refusing to recognise the state as their father.

 

[Stripe]

In any case, you basically admitted you don't have any advice or information for oppressed people unable to protest or speak out at all.

Why do you keep saying this?

People always have the right and always have the ability to speak out against oppression and injustice.

What a stupid and inane comparison.

I think it's pretty good. A son can by no means turn into his father any more than the citizens can turn into the government. Of course, every analogy can be stretched too far and I realise the limitations of this one, but I think it makes my point well enough.

Peace.

 

[Skavau]

Why do you keep saying this?

People always have the right and always have the ability to speak out against oppression and injustice

Not if they get shot for it. Do you propose that those who speak out with that risk of termination or removal continue to do so ineffectively?

I think it's pretty good. A son can by no means turn into his father any more than the citizens can turn into the government. Of course, every analogy can be stretched too far and I realise the limitations of this one, but I think it makes my point well enough.

It is, and remains a nonsense comparison.