[NGTM-1R]

Rare outbreak of common sense?

Yeah, I doubt that too.

Man, screw you and your "people are dying, let's sit on our hands" ****.

[General Battuta]

Rare outbreak of common sense?

Yeah, I doubt that too.

Man, screw you and your "people are dying, let's sit on our hands" ****.

We do that every day. The difference is that these people are dying much more sexily, in a manner that involves fighter jets and gunfire.

[Mongoose]

To be fair, though, you can't help alleviate poverty and drought by just launching a few airstrikes against weapons depots.

[redsniper]

>B-52 drops money on poor people
>Air strike on poverty

[Bobboau]

>thousands killed, crushed by money.

[General Battuta]

To be fair, though, you can't help alleviate poverty and drought by just launching a few airstrikes against weapons depots.

The best thing America has done for its foreign image in the past ten years is disaster relief. Tossing a bunch of humrats out the window does a lot more than cluster bombing any number of bad guys.

[Mongoose]

Oh, I know it does.  It's just that in this case, it seems like there's a few concrete steps we could take to make things easier for the rebel forces that wouldn't involve prolonged military involvement, and given how public sentiment in the region is squarely behind said rebels, I don't think we'd do our image damage by getting involved in a limited fashion.

[NGTM-1R]

We do that every day.

And that annoys me too.

It is also totally irrelevant to my point. The Colonel has provided us with a near-perfect means of asserting military force and helping the rebels without much risk by using his aircraft.

[Herra Tohtori]

>B-52 drops money on poor people
>Air strike on poverty

[General Battuta]

We do that every day.

And that annoys me too.

It is also totally irrelevant to my point. The Colonel has provided us with a near-perfect means of asserting military force and helping the rebels without much risk by using his aircraft.

It's not irrelevant at all. Like I said, I think one of the risks here is that this kind of intervention is very sexy and therefore more prone to go off where it's not needed. I'm not totally opposed to it, but I'm not convinced it's actually worth it either, even if the regime can't follow through on its threats.

The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.

[Herra Tohtori]

Also.

Where would we (the first world with significant military presence) need to intervene next?

Would we have the resources to pull off "intervening" in other hot spots where dictators resort to violence against their citizens?

What would the message be if we chose to intervene in Libya and not in whatever despot decides to kill some of their citizens?

What would the message be to dictators who would assume that the west WOULD intervene if their citizens started rioting on the streets?

What would the message be to citizens who would assume that the west WOULD intervene if their dictator started killing them off to stop the uprising?


Whose expectations should be met?


As much as it pains me to say (as this is one of the situations where I do think international intervention would be acceptable), it might in the long run be better to let it play out internally if at all possible.

If we go in there and take the rebels' side, it's going to send a message to autocratic governments of Middle-East that if they start killing off their citizens, the West will intervene. This'll make them anxious and jittery and probably worsen the diplomatic relations (if any) to those countries.

It'll also send a message to the citizens of said autocratic governments that the west will come to their aid.

What if they count on that but the west can't or won't deliver? What if helping citizens in some country is inconvenient or impossible from political or military perspective?


No wonder Revan turned to the Dark Side...

[Unknown Target]

Good points Herra Tohtori.

I would also ask; if America was true to it's principles, how could it not intervene? How could it not assist all the other country's rebels?

Is America being true to it's principles?

If it is, then why aren't we intervening?

If it's not, then why are we allowing our country to detach itself from it's foundations?

[General Battuta]

I would also ask; if America was true to it's principles, how could it not intervene? How could it not assist all the other country's rebels?

Which principles are these?

If it's not, then why are we allowing our country to detach itself from it's foundations?

Since when has military intervention in other countries been a foundation of our country?

Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.

[Bobboau]

you know, the least we could do would be dropping humanitarian aid, personally I'd like us to be dropping other stuff too, but we really should be able to just carpet Benghazi with HDRs

[Herra Tohtori]

Technically, any one country alone has no business in intervening in any internal business happening inside another sovereign country.

America's principles don't have anything to do with that.

Things like that need to be internationally approved efforts. Unilateral intervention would very likely be the worst possible option.



Humanitarian aid would be a good start but who's to say that Libyan Air Force won't start shooting down the cargo planes?

Hmmm...

What about a catapult?

[Bobboau]

Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.

supposed American principals would be things like freedom of speech, democracy, freedom of religion, right to expression, ect..

this links up with military intervention when said intervention would, according to those who promote it, assist those who are trying to promote those principals in another land.

[Bobboau]

Humanitarian aid would be a good start but who's to say that Libyan Air Force won't start shooting down the cargo planes?

That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.

[Herra Tohtori]

That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.

Who knows what Gaddafi wants or how detached from reality he is.

[General Battuta]

Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.

supposed American principals would be things like freedom of speech, democracy, freedom of religion, right to expression, ect..

this links up with military intervention when said intervention would, according to those who promote it, assist those who are trying to promote those principals in another land.

Anyone who wants to reduce it to something that simple shouldn't be trusted with that kind of decision. I don't mean that as a personal attack against you, I understand what you're saying, but this is still fundamentally rhetoric.

[Bobboau]

well, the only real threat would be from interceptors, there should not be any hostile AAA within range of Benghazi. hell, now that I think of it, it's a ****ing port, we could just send it there on a ship, there is a governing council in the rebel towns, we could turn it over to them and allow them to distribute it.

Anyone who wants to reduce it to something that simple shouldn't be trusted with that kind of decision. I don't mean that as a personal attack against you, I understand what you're saying, but this is still fundamentally rhetoric.

I was simply filling in the gaps you seemed to have missed in some other person's argument.