Libyan civil war started by Western countries?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This attack makes no sense, of course, unless it could be rigorously demonstrated that the NATO attacks would cause fewer civilian casualties than Gaddafi's, and unless it could be rigorously demonstrated that Gaddafi was killing impermissably many civilians as a by-product of his perfectly legal defense of his status as the sovereign head of state opposing an armed rebellion.

This is hardly difficult to demonstrate when Gaddafi stated that

The enemy had to be chased and the terrorists had to be hanged. Anybody who took arms against Libya would be executed. Those who waged war against Libya would be put to death. Those who facilitated entry of the enemy into Libya or handed over Libyan cities would be executed.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110222/local/gaddafi-in-fighting-speech-i-will-not-give-up

 

In a diatribe that lasted an hour-an-a-quarter, the Libyan leader threatened death sentences against anyone who challenged his authority and declared that he had more justification to use force that the Chinese authorities who ordered the massacre in Tiananmen Square.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8342543/Libya-more-than-1000-dead.html

 

There are also many documented incidents of dissidents being tortured or arrested.

 

Incidentally, he rejects your argument explicitly by arguing that he is not a sovereign head of state.

 

He refused to resign, saying he had no official position in Libya from which to resign from and would remain the head of the revolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12544648

[Djordje]

http://www.businessw...than-alter.html

 

Thread; I must be missing something, because to my knowledge, actions taken in Libya, as presented by the US, with the following UN resolution...were all based on Humanitarian efforts, not a Government Change or anything else.

 

I really don't follow Marat around looking for consistency, but the comment "So the official doctrine that the NATO attack is somehow a humanitarian mission to save civilians is ludicrous" would seem absolutely accurate "Broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce". I would place the blame on the leader of the gang action, however, not NATO.

 

Djordje; I did listen, well read your video, but I'm not sure of your motive. I also looked up Libya's GDP/capita and it ranks 50th in a total of 189, not too bad. I joined your thread, thinking you might be satisfied with Qaddafi, at least over what might be next and basically have been arguing that point. I hope I'm wrong, but it's looking more and more like Egypt is going to have a Muslim Brotherhood/Military Coalition Government and they had been outlawed, while already in Libya, are part of the "so called" rebels. Would you accept a Iranian Style Government???

 

The state must be secular if that's what you mean.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have a few questions that still have not been answered:

 

1. What evidence is there to suggest this is an oil venture, rather than some other evil move against Libya? (Or even, say, a Western move for a better image in the Middle East after Iraq, by trying to support a popular "revolution." The Western nations might do this to get more support in fighting terrorism, or to discourage future terrorists by making the West the good guys.)
2. How would the West benefit from Libya's oil when it is already sold on the open market?
3. Why did the Arab League and the UN support an imperialistic venture to get oil?

To me, these are the obvious objections to any hypothesis that we're in this for the oil.

[jackson33]

CR; I'm finding it very difficult, appearing to be defending Gaddafi, since the accusations used by US media, including Reagan's and his reasoning for actions, but the hypocrisy of my Government from one month to the next (toleration/cooperation) to actual promotion of rebellion based on seen weakness is a little difficult for me to accept. If the same "attitude" or actions were offered the Iranian's a couple months ago, or to Syria today, it might make sense, but still not necessarily a matter of US National Security. The same arguments were made in backing the Egyptian rebellion whose vital attitudes on both Israel and at least a sense of "secular" government, seem to have been forgotten. Israel is currently at risk, as well as control of the Suez Cannel.

 

Additionally I find the said excuse "for humanitarian reason" absurd in a world full of leaders/governments that seem to have no interest other than power/control over their population or some religious, around the world and the US is not and can not police thousands of years of corrupted societies. Sooner or later, somebody best realize this issue and problem cause, IS religion and some societies for whatever reason are willing to be governed in this manner.

 

According to the UN, the worst countries, based on "humanitarian" problems are 1- Somalia, 2- Chad, 3-Sudan, 4- Zimbabwe, 5- Congo 6- Afghanistan, 19- North Korea (I feel the worst) 32- Iran 34- Lebanon 48- Syria 49- Egypt and Libya didn't even make the op 60.

 

http://www.news-world.us/pics/2010/08/22/60-worst-countries-in-the-world/

 

I don't want to get into "political rhetoric", but IMO we're hearing too much double talk (contradictable) from our Government and Media on just what and why thing are being said. Some may be lost in translation, I'm not sure, but there is no indication the people in Tripoli and I feel a majority of them are pro-Gaddifi are actually being armed and the idea militants are some how civilians (opposed to a military) and somehow deserve protection from the worlds powers, IMO defies common sense.

 

 

 

The state must be secular if that's what you mean. [/Quote]

 

Djordje; Basically yes and then what might be going on Libya, you are justified in opposing. Iran, is a Muslim State, ruled for the most part by Sharia Law. What's being supported today by "Western Countries" your thread title, is very similar to what happen in Iran 40 years ago and opposed by the West.

 

Thread; When Obama gave his Speech to Muslims (Video previously linked), I don't think he understood that those that lead the Muslim World (The Brotherhood 1928), are opposed to Western Style SOCIETY, the rule of law based on human emotions and understandings opposed to theological teachings of years long gone by...I agree with him, that the young and restless (large percentages) in these nations should be included in the future, as has always been the case as they mature and grow wiser, but to encourage revolting against the establishment, however perceived, is not always the answer.

 

 

 

I have a few questions that still have not been answered:

 

1- What evidence is there to suggest this is an oil venture, rather than some other evil move against Libya?

2-How would the West benefit from Libya's oil when it is already sold on the open market?

3- Why did the Arab League and the UN support an imperialistic venture to get oil?

 

To me, these are the obvious objections to any hypothesis that we're in this for the oil. [/Quote]

 

CR; No doubt France and England might be looking at Libya from a Economical viewpoint, but IMO the UN, NATO (as a whole) and most certainly the Arab League, are not, nor do I feel is the current US Administration. The authors original comments, suggesting cause, from my understanding was not his/her actual purpose, as indicated on the last post....

[imatfaal]

Cap'n - once the conspiracy theories come out to play the obvious objections are quashed. The only time that Libyan oil ceased to flow was during the last revolution and now - and as you point out that does not tally with this being solely about the oil.

[Marat]

Any sovereign government, whether it is properly conceived as concentrated in the person of one leader or has a distributed leadership system, such as Libya and various federal states do, has a right to defend its governance of the state against armed rebellion by its citizens. The fact that Gaddafi makes a lot of fuss about Libya being a kind of multicentric, direct democracy, governed by popular committees spread around the nation, doesn't change the fact that in international law he would be regarded as the de facto head of state, so at international law his right to defend the state against rebellion is secure.

 

Prior to the NATO intervention Gaddafi offered amnesty to all rebels who threw down their arms, which has to be taken to mean that he had no intention to fire on unarmed civilians, so there were from that moment on no true 'civilians' for the U.N. Security Council action to protect, since all those still opposing Gaddafi after the amnesty offer were armed rebels, who have no right to claim international intervention for humanitarian protection. In any case, the entire issue is not clearly justiciable, since all legitimate action against armed rebellion, like all legal military action, will always cause a certain percentage of casualties among unarmed civilians, and international law has never defined a percentage which is legally 'too high' so as to justify humanitarian intervention to stop it. So any humanitarian intervention has to be regarded as without secure legal foundation, since it is just a judgment call on a matter of degree made by those who purport to judge the legitimacy of their own action.

 

The oil interest of the Western world in ejecting Gaddafi is clear. The price of oil is always inflated by the risk factor created by the fact that much of the world's oil supply comes from insecure sources, such as countries which are prone to internal chaos, inclined to revolts, predisposed to radicalization, always flirting with imposing oil embargoes on the West as they did in 1973, etc. The more of the world's oil supply that comes from secure sources, like the U.S. and Canada, the cheaper oil will be, and that will greatly assist the prosperity of the West. So if Iraq and Libya both fall under Western domination within a few years of each other, the West starts to make up for the disaster of the radicalization of Iran in 1979.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Additionally I find the said excuse "for humanitarian reason" absurd in a world full of leaders/governments that seem to have no interest other than power/control over their population or some religious, around the world and the US is not and can not police thousands of years of corrupted societies. Sooner or later, somebody best realize this issue and problem cause, IS religion and some societies for whatever reason are willing to be governed in this manner.

 

According to the UN, the worst countries, based on "humanitarian" problems are 1- Somalia, 2- Chad, 3-Sudan, 4- Zimbabwe, 5- Congo 6- Afghanistan, 19- North Korea (I feel the worst) 32- Iran 34- Lebanon 48- Syria 49- Egypt and Libya didn't even make the op 60.

 

http://www.news-worl...s-in-the-world/

How would that list be adjusted if one accounted in "civil war and assaults on cities" into the calculations for Libya?

[jackson33]

How would that list be adjusted if one accounted in "civil war and assaults on cities" into the calculations for Libya?[/Quote]

 

CR; You'll have to ask the UN General Council, their the ones defining "humanitarian" and any connection to Libya under Resolutions 1970 and 1973. The only signs of destructions, I've seen are what US Bombs and Missiles have caused, well maybe a couple bombs from French Bombers. My point was, if any Nation has "humanitarian cause" for UN intervention, it's NOT Libya.

 

What assaults; If the Military gets near one of maybe three towns, everybody in that town heads out of town, somebody drops a few bombs around and the military leaves, in turn the a hand full of rebels move in claiming victory. When the bombs stop, the rebels again leave and the military moves back in. Except for firing shots at the sun or moon, I'm not sure anything is going on other than what the US is doing and a handful of something being called a coalition. There's no war going on, only some form of international political campaign. This is not to say a civil war between two existing philosophies, Muslim/Secular doesn't exist, as if that were something new, but there is no dedicated opposition to Quaddafi, I see.

 

 

Cap'n - once the conspiracy theories come out to play the obvious objections are quashed. The only time that Libyan oil ceased to flow was during the last revolution and now - and as you point out that does not tally with this being solely about the oil. [/Quote]

 

imatfaal; The oil has already stopped flowing, at least off and on. I feel sure BP and the UK feel the Libya's reserves are under estimated ( I think true) and BP could increase production and the French would appreciate that, but that scenario was not in trouble, under Qaddaffi.

 

 

Thread; On this, it's being suggest the US should now arm the "so called" rebels (Obama/Ms. Clinton), with what I can't imagine. If that doesn't work, it won't, what next arming Syria's civilian protesters....

 

 

Also, if the US and I mean the US, can convince (buy off) Qaddafi and move him and his family to some perceived "safe Haven", after 42 years, his entire adult life, Qaddafi might agree....My question would remain, who/what/why would then take over???

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/video-gadhafi-leaves-landmines-behind-for-rebels/

 

CR; You'll have to ask the UN General Council, their the ones defining "humanitarian" and any connection to Libya under Resolutions 1970 and 1973. The only signs of destructions, I've seen are what US Bombs and Missiles have caused, well maybe a couple bombs from French Bombers. My point was, if any Nation has "humanitarian cause" for UN intervention, it's NOT Libya.

I believe several of the countries you listed already get foreign aid or military intervention, such as Somalia.

[jackson33]

CR; I'll be happy to discuss any Countries humanitarian needs and would probably agree on half, that the US and/or the UN are trying to assist. Somalia has always been a basket case, probably will be for a long time or at least until they try to educate their young. They are predominantly Arab, Sunni, have tried to incorporate Sharia with their English Legal System (not working well), but I have a hard time justifying any meaningful assistance for a Nation that all but condones piracy....

 

So you don't lose track of my point, if I felt the "rebels" were in fact Libyan's (I think international radicals, more applies) and in fact represented a majority or even a large percentage of the people wanting to create democratic rule or some form of majority rules NOT opposed to Israels existance and Western Societies in general, I'd be the first to promote UN actions. I simply don't see it that way and think most the current unrest is based on a few taking advanage of the situation to bring in "Muslim/Sharia" influance...as in Iran.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So you don't lose track of my point, if I felt the "rebels" were in fact Libyan's (I think international radicals, more applies) and in fact represented a majority or even a large percentage of the people wanting to create democratic rule or some form of majority rules NOT opposed to Israels existance and Western Societies in general, I'd be the first to promote UN actions. I simply don't see it that way and think most the current unrest is based on a few taking advanage of the situation to bring in "Muslim/Sharia" influance...as in Iran.

At the moment I don't know if there's enough data to form a conclusion either way. There are allegations of Al-Qaeda involvement, but there are also news reports that native Libyans are taking up arms at their own behest. The rebellion is simply too disorganized right now.

 

Until the situation is clearer, directly supporting the rebels seems a bit silly.

[Marat]

Can you imagine if the nations acting under the legal authority of the UN Security Council to use all necessary means solely to prevent civilian casualties were now to start arming the rebels? How on earth would the imperialist powers explain that one away? Have they been able to calculate and prove somehow that arming the rebels and sending that ragtag, undisciplined, unprofessional mob rampaging across the countryside will definitely result in fewer civilian casualties than letting Gaddafi suppress the revolt unhindered? Usually the Great Powers have sufficient respect for the public that they provide us at least with an excuse for their interventions which has a superficial plausibility if you don't look too closely at it (invasion of Dominca to protect American medical students; action in Vietnam because of the domino theory, etc.), but arming civilians to intensify the fighting in order to prevent civilian casualties is just too silly.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Apparently the government is working to figure out just who the rebels are and whether they should be supported:

 

The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and make contacts with rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces, according to American officials.

...

By meeting with rebel groups, the Americans hope to fill in gaps in understanding who the leaders are of the groups opposed Colonel Qaddafi, and what their allegiances are, according to United States government officials speaking only on condition of anonymity because the actions of C.I.A. operatives are classified. The C.I.A. has declined to comment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?hp

[Mr Skeptic]

Any sovereign government, whether it is properly conceived as concentrated in the person of one leader or has a distributed leadership system, such as Libya and various federal states do, has a right to defend its governance of the state against armed rebellion by its citizens. ... so at international law his right to defend the state against rebellion is secure.

 

Source?

[jackson33]

Consequences of Recognition

 

Recognized states are treated as having the rights and duties of states.

 

Recognition of a government validates the acts of that government from its establishment.

 

Recognition of a government gives that government, normally, access to the courts of the recognizing state (since prior to recognition that government had no legal personality in the recognizing state).

 

Recognition of a government gives it the right to the property of the state within the recognizing jurisdiction (i.e. embassy, papers, bank accounts, etc.).

 

Sovereign Immunity, to the extent available under international/national law. [/Quote]

 

http://homepage.gallaudet.edu/David.Penna/Recogn.htm

 

 

 

Skeptic, I believe he is referring to "recognition of a State" and the inherent right protect itself, a natural right. Libya is not only recognized by most States, but a member of the United Nations and at this time.

[Peron]

If I can divert for a moment. Why is the united states helping the rebels? I understand if the United states was defending the Libyan citizens from attack by Gaddafi, but why go to such great lengths as to, "support the opposition"? When the united states doesn't seem to know much about the opposition, as Clinton stated, "We don't know as much as we would like to know and as much as we expect we will know", so this leaves me wondering what the hell does the United States hope to gain? At this point Obama's policy does not include "regime change". So I think we can rule that out.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-obama-authorizes-covert-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028&page=1

Edited March 31, 2011 by Peron

[Marat]

Obviously the United States cares nothing about Libyan civilians per se. It lets 46,000 of its own citizens die every year because it refuses to introduce a public health care system, so I doubt it is all that sentimental about the health and well-being of Libyans. The whole point of the intervention was to promote regime change in order to transfer Libya's oil reserves from the control of an unstable, unfriendly government which adds a risk premium to the cost of the local oil supply that would not exist if the West dominated the country. The hope was that the West could act under the moral cover of the UN Resolution to protect civilian lives and effect regime change via the detour of one of the few grounds for war now permitted by international law -- humanitarian protection under a Security Council resolution.

 

But things have started to fall apart now that the rebels are having trouble fighting the Libyan Army even with the help of Western bombs and missiles, so the West might have to intervene so aggressively that the action cannot possibly be disguised as humanitarian protection of civilians. This would then be an illegal war outside of the UN Security Council mandate, so Obama would become the world's first war criminal to be a former law professor and also a Nobel Prize winner. That's really rich.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Obviously the United States cares nothing about Libyan civilians per se. It lets 46,000 of its own citizens die every year because it refuses to introduce a public health care system, so I doubt it is all that sentimental about the health and well-being of Libyans.

Well, but going to war isn't socialist.

 

You are committing an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy in your argument. Perhaps you'd like to restate it.

 

The whole point of the intervention was to promote regime change in order to transfer Libya's oil reserves from the control of an unstable, unfriendly government which adds a risk premium to the cost of the local oil supply that would not exist if the West dominated the country. The hope was that the West could act under the moral cover of the UN Resolution to protect civilian lives and effect regime change via the detour of one of the few grounds for war now permitted by international law -- humanitarian protection under a Security Council resolution.

Again, do you have any evidence to support this conclusion? You may well argue that the intervention is unreasonable, but a conclusion that it is an oil war is not justified unless you have evidence to specifically support the claim.

 

I can think of a perfectly plausible alternate hypothesis that also fits the data, for example. America has a bad record in the Middle East, making diplomacy difficult and giving terrorists easy recruiting. By manufacturing a crisis and then gathering international support for an intervention to "save lives," America boosts its image in the region, granting it better diplomatic access to nations, leverage for future trade (and even oil!), and denying terrorists potential recruits.

 

However, my alternate hypothesis also has absolutely no evidence to support it. What do you have?

[Marat]

I'm not sure that criticising a theory about why a country has acted in a certain way on the basis of how it acts in other contexts really amounts to an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument usually says nothing more than that assertion X made by person Y is wrong because Y is bad, stupid, untrustworthy, etc., and is typically nothing more than an insult without reasons. In the present case, however, I am offering an argument about America's likely motivations in the present conflict on the basis of its demonstrated priorities in its past actions. I could also have cited its indifference to thousands of civilian deaths in Rwanda as evidence that concern about the deaths of foreign civilians in conflicts far away is simply not a plausible reason for explaining America's intervention in Libya. America seems only to get all sentimental about foreign civilian deaths when the country where they are occurring has some strategic resource or special geopolitical signficance, as in the case of Libya.

 

A tu quoque argument says simply that what I have done wrong is all right because 'you yourself' ('tu quoque' in Latin) have done the same thing, so that doesn't seem to apply here.

 

I don't have any secret intelligence or Wikileaks source to back up my theory that the U.S. is intervening in Libya as it chose not to intervene in Ivory Coast, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or Rwanda because there are good geopolitical advantages for the intervention in the first case but not in all the other cases. I am only offering a reasoned argument based on a variety of inferences from a number of fairly evident empirical data -- such as the consistent non-intervention where there are desperate humanitarian needs as opposed to intervention where it serves America's geopolitical interests -- but not a statement supported by some specific fact unknown to others.

 

An industrial economy like that of the United States is profoundly harmed if the price of oil goes too high, and one important factor increasing oil prices is the risk premium added to the cost of oil because so much of it is located in countries whose political leaders are untrustworthy. The more oil that can be brought under the control of the West or its puppets, the better, and the lengths to which the West will go to achieve this is evident from the CIA action against Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s, installing the Shah as the friendly puppet there to keep the local oil supply there attached to Western interests. It seems not unlikely that the same process is underway now in Libya, just as Pinochet was installed by the CIA in Chile as the friendly puppet when Allende threatened U.S. copper and potash mine interests there.

 

The real challenge the U.S. and now NATO face is packing all this imperialism into the rather tight box of the U.N. Security Council resolution which allows intervention only to protect civilian lives. The hugely indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks are obviously killing large numbers of innocent civilians; innocent civilians support Gaddafi will be killed by any military support given to the rebels; and arming and training the rebels, who will no doubt be extremely undisciplined in their own use of force, will no doubt greatly augment the number of civilian deaths. So if all this is being done under the sole legal justification of protecting civilians, it is a colossal fraud.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A tu quoque argument says simply that what I have done wrong is all right because 'you yourself' ('tu quoque' in Latin) have done the same thing, so that doesn't seem to apply here.

No, that is not what it means. Please read the link I provided.

 

I don't have any secret intelligence or Wikileaks source to back up my theory that the U.S. is intervening in Libya as it chose not to intervene in Ivory Coast, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or Rwanda because there are good geopolitical advantages for the intervention in the first case but not in all the other cases. I am only offering a reasoned argument based on a variety of inferences from a number of fairly evident empirical data -- such as the consistent non-intervention where there are desperate humanitarian needs as opposed to intervention where it serves America's geopolitical interests -- but not a statement supported by some specific fact unknown to others.

• UN peacekeepers are already in the Ivory Coast, and nations are considering expanding the force. However, Gbagbo's forces are losing already.
• Bahrain has oil reserves (small ones), and its protests have only resulted in the deaths of perhaps two dozen, compared to outright artillery barrages and airstrikes in Libya.
• Syrian protests have similarly resulted in comparatively few deaths, although the situation is developing. Remember, Libya had thousands of deaths before intervention begain.
• Yemen and Sudan are similar.
• Somalia has had intervention, in case you've forgotten the 1990s.

The real challenge the U.S. and now NATO face is packing all this imperialism into the rather tight box of the U.N. Security Council resolution which allows intervention only to protect civilian lives. The hugely indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks are obviously killing large numbers of innocent civilians; innocent civilians support Gaddafi will be killed by any military support given to the rebels; and arming and training the rebels, who will no doubt be extremely undisciplined in their own use of force, will no doubt greatly augment the number of civilian deaths. So if all this is being done under the sole legal justification of protecting civilians, it is a colossal fraud.

Do you have evidence of your claims of many innocent civilian deaths? Decisions to arm the rebels have not yet been made, and I agree it would be foolish.

 

edit: oh, and incidentally:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?src=twrhp

[Marat]

Ask any military theorist and he will tell you that the three major causes of innocent civilian deaths in any conflict are: 1) aerial bombing, since it is not as accurate as ground fire; 2) missile strikes, since missiles cannot be targeted to pick out just the armed combatents in any group from the innocent civilians the way infantry fire could; and 3) fire from undisciplined, ragtag militia groups, which have not been trained in accurate shooting and do not know the rules of warfare. So what is the West doing under the UN mandate now in Libya to "prevent civilian casualties"? It is using aerial bombardment, missile strikes, and supporting an undisciplined rebel army, all of which methods are guaranteed to increase rather than decrease civilian deaths.

 

Every armed conflict unavoidably causes deaths among innocent civilians, but unless there is a rigorous legal test for what proportion of civilian deaths is sufficiently high to justify humanitarian intervention, then this is just a judgment call, and the judgment call will always be made in support of the crass geopolitical interests of the countries which have the military might to interfere around the world. For example, the NATO action in Afghanistan has caused 3000 innocent civilian deaths. What rigorous legal argument could be formulated to deny the claim of some opposing group of nations to impose a no-fly zone over the NATO countries and to bomb NATO airfields to save the lives of those innocent civilians? None. It is all just arbitrary power-politics, and yet the West hypocritically tries to pretend that its interventions are all sanctioned by the Humanitarian Ideal of Transcendent Justice and the American Way.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ask any military theorist and he will tell you that the three major causes of innocent civilian deaths in any conflict are: 1) aerial bombing, since it is not as accurate as ground fire; 2) missile strikes, since missiles cannot be targeted to pick out just the armed combatents in any group from the innocent civilians the way infantry fire could; and 3) fire from undisciplined, ragtag militia groups, which have not been trained in accurate shooting and do not know the rules of warfare. So what is the West doing under the UN mandate now in Libya to "prevent civilian casualties"? It is using aerial bombardment, missile strikes, and supporting an undisciplined rebel army, all of which methods are guaranteed to increase rather than decrease civilian deaths.

I'll grant you #3, but the first two can easily be fixed by not firing missiles or bombs near civilian populations. Bombing tanks in the countryside, or air defense installations on the coast, brings little risk of civilian casualties.

 

You could rely on evidence rather than lofty hypotheticals, you know.

[Mr Skeptic]

At this point Obama's policy does not include "regime change". So I think we can rule that out.

 

Don't be so naive as to take a politician's word for something as evidence of anything. Obama can't say we're helping a regime change, because that would look bad. By our actions it's pretty clear we're kicking Quaddafi out.

 

I don't have any secret intelligence or Wikileaks source to back up my theory that the U.S. is intervening in Libya as it chose not to intervene in Ivory Coast, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or Rwanda because there are good geopolitical advantages for the intervention in the first case but not in all the other cases. I am only offering a reasoned argument based on a variety of inferences from a number of fairly evident empirical data -- such as the consistent non-intervention where there are desperate humanitarian needs as opposed to intervention where it serves America's geopolitical interests -- but not a statement supported by some specific fact unknown to others.

 

We're not invading every country that has resources either. Why can't we have more than one reason to intervene? And of course there's also the matter of degree.

[jackson33]

Since Libyan Rebels are in fact civilians, aren't you denying any Government from putting down an armed rebellion? Seems to me the War being waged on Quaddafi's forces and indirectly his followers is a pure play in the political arena. There are now "said" 12-15 of the Government Staff, that have been paid off and are granted exile in Great Britain. If it's not political and the Quaddafi Regime is the target, why are they allowed in GB. Anything classified illegal done by the Government, under any law I've ever studied, makes them accomplices...

 

Why am I getting a gut feeling the same people that opposed Bush/Iraq, now support Obama/Libya (especially the Media). Obama said Qaddafi must go, at least a half dozen times, changing his "words" (not his mind) to fit both public opinion and the UN Resolution. What other reason, than regime change or maybe oil (French/GB), could we have...he had already given up his biological and nuclear weapons programs and was threatening NO ONE. Personally, I think he (Obama) feels the public will vindicate his actions IF Quaddafi is remove or killed, based on the Lockerbie Bombing and the release of the only person ever convicted, Magrhi. If I'm correct and he is killed or dethroned, we'll hear all about it for months leading into the elections or if not I'll give him a 50-50 change for not even being the Democratic Nominee.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Since Libyan Rebels are in fact civilians, aren't you denying any Government from putting down an armed rebellion? Seems to me the War being waged on Quaddafi's forces and indirectly his followers is a pure play in the political arena. There are now "said" 12-15 of the Government Staff, that have been paid off and are granted exile in Great Britain. If it's not political and the Quaddafi Regime is the target, why are they allowed in GB. Anything classified illegal done by the Government, under any law I've ever studied, makes them accomplices...

The UK has specifically not granted immunity to the defectors.