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

[Zeke]

Saudi Arabia is the most tyrannical, but they get a pass when they kill protesters, their our buds so its ok.

 

[WizardofOz]

Saudi Arabia is the most tyrannical, but they get a pass when they kill protesters, there our buds so its ok.

:thumb: Exactly.

Or, how about Yemen and what they've done?

professional snipers shot to kill when they opened fire on an anti-government demonstration in Yemen that left at least 52 protesters dead.

 

[Stripe]

Democratic protesters do not have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government.

 

[Squishes]

Democratic protesters do not have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government.

Why?

 

[Skavau]

:thumb: Exactly.

Or, how about Yemen and what they've done?

professional snipers shot to kill when they opened fire on an anti-government demonstration in Yemen that left at least 52 protesters dead.

I'm in provisional support of intervention in Libya. There are other fascist and totalitarian states out there and it is to our shame that we've supported, funded and armed them over a substantial period of time. At some point, they too will have outlived their utility to either us or their populace and we might be repeating history and 'liberating' another nation all over again.

That said, any dictatorship that could fall and spring upon a new democracy is nothing to be ashamed of if we had something to do with it. I would find it harder to bare if Gaddafi succeeded in retaking Libya from the rebels and instigated a crackdown on all anti-Gaddafi groups and individuals. We would be looking at a state where upwards of hundreds of thousands would be detained and/or massacred and in the knowledge that we did nothing.

This should be a left-wing cause, and we should state our objectives as the ousting of a dictator.

 

[Stripe]

Why?

They have the right to self defence. they have the right to speak their minds. But they do not have the right to start a war.

The precedent being set for society is; if you want to be heard - start shooting.

 

[Skavau]

They have the right to self defence. they have the right to speak their minds. But they do not have the right to start a war.

The precedent being set for society is; if you want to be heard - start shooting.

In most fascist states, they can't speak their minds, protest, or even be known supporting the opposition. What else do you suppose is left for a population if they are subjugated in that way?

 

[Stripe]

In most fascist states, they can't speak their minds, protest, or even be known supporting the opposition.

Of course they can!

 

[Skavau]

Of course they can!

Well, they can but they'll be detained, or shot.

What do you suppose an oppressed people do?

 

[Stripe]

Well, they can but they'll be detained, or shot.

Which makes the government murderers or kidnappers and obliges the neighbours to respond.

What do you suppose an oppressed people do?

They do what is happening on TV. :duh:

 

[Skavau]

Which makes the government murderers or kidnappers and obliges the neighbours to respond.

They do what is happening on TV. :duh:

Democratic protesters do not have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government.

I'm confused. Do you or do you not think an oppressed people have the right to take arms against their government or not?

 

[Stripe]

I'm confused.

Of course you are.

Do you or do you not think an oppressed people have the right to take arms against their government or not?

People do not have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government. A government's neighbours, on the other hand, are morally obliged to act when the government starts murdering its citizens.

 

[Skavau]

People do not have the right to organise an armed rebellion against their government. A government's neighbours, on the other hand, are morally obliged to act when the government starts murdering its citizens.

Why neighbouring nations and not the citizens of said nation? Do you suppose that citizens, if successful in overturning a government through armed rebellion should be held accountable?

 

[Stripe]

Why neighbouring nations and not the citizens of said nation?

Because that makes a mockery of government authority. These 'democratic protests' are anarchy.

Do you suppose that citizens, if successful in overturning a government through armed rebellion should be held accountable?

Yeah, they should.

But they won't be.

 

[Skavau]

Because that makes a mockery of government authority. These 'democratic protests' are anarchy.

Really? That's your reason? Because armed rebellion causes the authority of the government to be 'mocked'? Tyrants like Mugabe deserve to have their arbitrary 'authority' mocked. Tyrants like Gaddafi deserve to have their arbitrary 'authority' mocked. Kim-Jong deserves to have his arbitrary 'authority' mocked. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Belarus, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan (the list goes on) deserve to be ovethrown by popular uprisings should they occur.

Are you telling me that you would not support a hypothetical uprising in North Korea because it would make a "mockery" of Kim-Jong's leadership?

 

[rexlunae]

Because that makes a mockery of government authority.

What makes a mockery of government authority is its abuse. That falls squarely on the Gaddhafi side of the situation.

These 'democratic protests' are anarchy.

The protests started out peaceful. They didn't fire back at the government forces until the government started shooting them. Even while they fight, they've organized themselves into something like a government that can take over once the despot in Tripoli is removed. It seems to me that the protesters more than the government stand for law and order.

 

[Stripe]

Really? That's your reason?

Because armed rebellion causes the authority of the government to be 'mocked'?

Uh, no. The authority of a government would not be mocked if it quashed an illegal uprising. It's when the neighbours start arming the citizens that the government is mocked.

Tyrants like Mugabe deserve to have their arbitrary 'authority' mocked. Tyrants like Gaddafi deserve to have their arbitrary 'authority' mocked. Kim-Jong deserves to have his arbitrary 'authority' mocked.

No, the neighbours are obligated to act against the government if charges of murder or kidnapping are true. Arming the citizens is a stupid measure and calling it a "Libyan effort" is counter-productive. The precedent set is a dangerous one.

Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Belarus, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan (the list goes on) deserve to be ovethrown by popular uprisings should they occur.

If they deserve justice then a proper authority should deal it out. Waiting for an oppressed populace to start shooting things is stupid and dangerous.

Are you telling me that you would not support a hypothetical uprising in North Korea because it would make a "mockery" of Kim-Jong's leadership?

I would not support it because of the precedent it follows. It doesn't make a mockery of a particular person, it makes a mockery of the concept of proper authority.

What makes a mockery of government authority is its abuse. That falls squarely on the Gaddhafi side of the situation.

Uh, OK. :idunno:

The protests started out peaceful. They didn't fire back at the government forces until the government started shooting them.

OK. :idunno:

But they are waging war now.

Even while they fight, they've organized themselves into something like a government that can take over once the despot in Tripoli is removed. It seems to me that the protesters more than the government stand for law and order.

A well organised criminal is still a criminal. :idunno:

 

[Skavau]

Uh, no. The authority of a government would not be mocked if it quashed an illegal uprising.

Its legitimacy and character would certainly be compromised for it.

It's when the neighbours start arming the citizens that the government is mocked.

You don't have a problem with the neighbours of a tyrant nation intervening for humanitarian reasons but you do have a problem with the neighbours of a tyrant nation suppling any rebels their with arms. Doublespeak, much?

No, the neighbours are obligated to act against the government if charges of murder or kidnapping are true. Arming the citizens is a stupid measure and calling it a "Libyan effort" is counter-productive. The precedent set is a dangerous one.

It was a Libyan effort. The Libyan effort took them very far and knocked on the doors of Tripoli in an attempt to depose of Gaddafi. Now there is an international effort (hopefully in the long run) supporting them and protecting them from Gaddafi's counter-offensive.

If they deserve justice then a proper authority should deal it out. Waiting for an oppressed populace to start shooting things is stupid and dangerous.

But inevitable - as we are now seeing. What constitutes a "proper authority" in your eyes? You are effectively arguing the case that the millions of oppressed citizens subjugated across the globe should do nothing to resist their captors on some pitiful argument of mocking their illegitimate regime's authority. I am quite sure they could not care less whether or not uprising against their overseers negates their authority. To support oppressed people in doing so is finally showing some sort of support and recognition for human rights that the UN has said so for so long it supports.

I would not support it because of the precedent it follows. It doesn't make a mockery of a particular person, it makes a mockery of the concept of proper authority.

So the government of North Korea is a proper authority?

 

[Squishes]

They have the right to self defence. they have the right to speak their minds. But they do not have the right to start a war.

Then who has a right a start a war? And how do you know?

 

[Stripe]

Its legitimacy and character would certainly be compromised for it.

:squint:

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

You don't have a problem with the neighbours of a tyrant nation intervening for humanitarian reasons but you do have a problem with the neighbours of a tyrant nation suppling any rebels their with arms. Doublespeak, much?

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

It was a Libyan effort. The Libyan effort took them very far and knocked on the doors of Tripoli in an attempt to depose of Gaddafi. Now there is an international effort (hopefully in the long run) supporting them and protecting them from Gaddafi's counter-offensive.

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

But inevitable - as we are now seeing.

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

What constitutes a "proper authority" in your eyes?

:idunno: 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.

You are effectively arguing the case that the millions of oppressed citizens subjugated across the globe should do nothing to resist their captors on some pitiful argument of mocking their illegitimate regime's authority.

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

I am quite sure they could not care less whether or not uprising against their overseers negates their authority.

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

To support oppressed people in doing so is finally showing some sort of support and recognition for human rights that the UN has said so for so long it supports.

So the UN is stupid. :idunno:

Got any news for us? :chuckle:

So the government of North Korea is a proper authority?

Yep.

Is the US government?

Then who has a right a start a war?

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.

And how do you know?

How do you not know this? :idunno: