Ghostly Apparition on 23/10/2011 at 06:39
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
I'm not sure if you catch anything other than Russia Today down there in the Alarus extension, but even a casual look at the Mediterranean should reveal how different the two countries are in terms of Western geopolitical importance. No one in their right mind would go near Syria with a ten foot pole right now unless they want to risk a failed state in-between Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey.
But, if I'm not mistaken nothing was said about western geopolitical importance. The reason given for supporting NATO intervention was that Gaddafi was killing his own people. If that is your yardstick, then it does raise the argument why we don't intervene in a lot of other conflicts.
I get your point, there are a lot of factors at play, but that isn't what they actually said.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
The thing is, we don't really know the reason nor are we likely to. There's a shit-ton of stories floating around (many credible, many not) that involved the guy pissing off Western economic interests. Which of these are bullshit and which were contributing factors is something that the rest of us lack the information to sort out.
What is bizarre about this whole situation is why we backed Al-Queda's people this time. Its a significant break from the US's habit of supporting corrupt dictators over ideological extremists in the Middle East.
Where did you get the information that its Al Queda's people? So far theres no indication the rebels are an Al Queda faction, although its far from clear exactly who they are or who or what type of government may arise out of this, but to go off half cocked saying that they are AL Queda is just bullshit.
Rug Burn Junky on 23/10/2011 at 06:43
Quote Posted by Azaran
If they really wanted to liberate Libyans from oppression, why didn't they invade Syria too
Probably because there aren't many Libyans in Syria.
BEAR on 23/10/2011 at 10:19
Quote Posted by Azaran
I'm going by past events, like the bullshit stories of Iraq's chemical weapons as an excuse to invade. And like I tried to explain before, the current intervention would be more believable if they had also intervened in Syria, where many more people have been killed.
So no, I didn't just pull this theory out of my ass.
Good point, while we're at it why don't we also invade China, where other human rights violations have occurred? Since we're not going to take any real world circumstances into consideration and we're just shooting from the hip with our morals and shit. Because clearly nobody did any thinking about anything before we became involved in Libya, such as the chance of success and repercussions of our involvement.
Vernon on 23/10/2011 at 12:36
How about I invade all yo mommas
Rug Burn Junky on 23/10/2011 at 17:09
Quote Posted by BEAR
Good point, while we're at it why don't we also invade China, where other human rights violations have occurred?
Oh don't be silly, of course we didn't invade China because goofy right-wing conspiracy theorists don't worry about China pissing off Western economic interests (And because now Obama only backs Al-Qaeda).
Aerothorn on 23/10/2011 at 23:09
I was shocked by the title post. I thought you were hardcore anti-death-penalty, SD? You're glad he's dead? I would have expected something more along the lines of "he should have been captured and tried in the Hague," even if you posted this before the leaked video calling the "killed in crossfire" story into question.
Also, if there is one thing I've learned from video games, it's that we WILL invade China. In response to Russia invading us. And then China will invade the Middle East. It's like musical chairs!
SD on 24/10/2011 at 03:05
He should have been captured and tried. I'm still glad he's dead! These things are not mutually exclusive.
CCCToad on 24/10/2011 at 17:01
Quote:
Where did you get the information that its Al Queda's people? So far theres no indication the rebels are an Al Queda faction, although its far from clear exactly who they are or who or what type of government may arise out of this, but to go off half cocked saying that they are AL Queda is just bullshit.
It isn't an Al-Queda faction. What happened was that Al-Queda chose to side with the rebel faction, with an (uncertain) number of their fighters going to Libya to join the cause and other Jihadist groups siding with the rebels as well. The reason it seems odd to me is that America these days is NEVER on the same side as extremist groups. Usually the mere presence of active Jihadists is enough to make Americans back whoever is up against them, no matter how brutal the dictator that means supporting.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/10/2011 at 18:14
Oi, how very manichean.
gunsmoke on 25/10/2011 at 03:26
Quote Posted by SD
He
should have been captured and tried. I'm still glad he's dead! These things are not mutually exclusive.
This is an honest question, not a shit-stirrer: does TTLG think that a trial would be anything less than a media circus and/or a kangaroo court? Would it make a mockery of the system? In the end, is it better (more productive) to just end him on 'the battlefield' or run him through a years long trial?
Curious to hear the opinions on this, since this is such an international site. Expand it to other major terrorist offenders and recent dictators if they are relevant.
/homework
