BOF Posted March 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2011 Everything you say is true Snowy but then it has been like that for time immemorial. That's how the big boys play the world game. They remove today's threat and worry about tomorrow's one tomorrow. It's always motivated by self-interest and it always will be. Whether we like it or not. I think the best idealists like you and me can hope is that some good comes out of it which in this case would be the stopping of the slaughter. Though I think they've missed the boat on that one by now too, presumably while they sat back to see which way the chips would fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Libyan foreign minister announcement saying that they have decided on an immediate ceasefire and to comply with the UN SC resolution. Ball back in our court, I suppose. I can't say that I'd be too convinced by their claims of acceptance of the resolution but let's hope that it does mean that they don't beat the crap out of the people of Benghazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Unfortunately that's the "way the world works". Shady deals, suspect motives, blind eyes turned all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just bomb the shit out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Unfortunately that's the "way the world works". And it will be the way the world continues to work whilst people accept it, either explicitly or implicitly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 True. What would you do to change it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Not accept that it's the way the world should work. Apologies if that appears glib but the change in attitude has to be, in my view, the origin for a change in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well yes. I agree with you, it DOES need to change. And not accepting it would be a good start! Only problem is we need a solution, and I for one have no confidence that I could change it for the better! Anyone that would though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I for one have no confidence that I could change it for the better! You don't impose that kind of thing from the top; it has to come from each individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 A very Statesman like performance from Cameron on this one (so far) .. got the UN to approve the action without alienating half the world in the process. I suspect had Blair followed the same route he would be remembered as one of the best PM's of our time , instead of as a unpopular war criminal be interesting to see what happens next though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yes, well done Cameron. Is it? Yes. The alternatve was the obliteration of Benghazi and 100,000's of civilians. If you favour action to prevent that then presumably this a good thing. Faced with thse choices what would you have done? Do we stop with Libya or do we continue on to Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia? The resolution pertains to Libya, as you know. Should the Bahrain authorities deploy artillery and fighter bombers against their protesters then I'd imagine the west would have something to say about that too. Do you think the situations in Libya and Bahrain are directly comparable? For how long are we now committed to Libya? Until Gaddafi is no longer a threat to his people, presumably. what are the aims of the action Have you read the resolution? Officially to protect the civilian population, in practice to materially aid the rebels in the removal off Gaddafi. and what are the aims and intentions post military action? Get out sharpish - if we actually put significant land forces in at all - and hopefuly pick up reconstruction and oil contracts for UKPlc from a grateful nation. EDIT: Apologies, on further reading of the thread I see these were all rhetorical questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Should the Bahrain authorities deploy artillery and fighter bombers against their protesters then I'd imagine the west would have something to say about that too. Does the size and manner of munitions matter? Do you think the situations in Libya and Bahrain are directly comparable? I don't think that the situations in Libya, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan and so on are vastly different. For how long are we now committed to Libya? Until Gaddafi is no longer a threat to his people, presumably. So if Ghaddafi doesn't flatten Benghazi/accepts the UN resolution (something about which I repeat I would be very skeptical) do the UK, the US and others accept him remaining in power until or unless the Libyans get rid of him? If not then why bother with the resolution? what are the aims of the action Have you read the resolution? Officially to protect the civilian population, in practice to materially aid the rebels in the removal off Gaddafi. Indeed, rather than the stated aims in the UNSCR, I was asking what the real aims are. and what are the aims and intentions post military action? Get out sharpish... To leave another potential political vacuum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 So Gaddafi has now continued with his assault hours after declaring a ceasefire? He's dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Not sure what I think of the press conference 'double act'. Neither of them is a comical Ali. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Does the size and manner of munitions matter? Yes, it makes a material (no pun intended) difference to the amount of deaths, and the speed with which he can consolidate his position. These things change the level of threat being faced, the degree of opposition, the difficulty of proceeding - they change everything. I don't think that the situations in Libya, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan and so on are vastly different. On a moral level? On a practical level, there are massive differences between them. So if Ghaddafi doesn't flatten Benghazi/accepts the UN resolution (something about which I repeat I would be very skeptical) do the UK, the US and others accept him remaining in power until or unless the Libyans get rid of him? If not then why bother with the resolution? The resolution is important for legitimacy - something our Iraq escapade lacked. Personally, I can't imagine a grateful nation wanting to vote in a free election for someone who was about to commit genocide on his people, but if they do, the let's accept that and help to secure the people he would kill, while leaving him a territory of those who want him. Yes, I do understand that this is not Mr Cameron's plan. To leave another potential political vacuum? There will be political confusion in the area for decades. We manage it even with our "mature democracies", so why would nations with less history of having a range of ways for people to interact with and challenge the state have it easier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yes, it makes a material (no pun intended) difference to the amount of deaths, and the speed with which he can consolidate his position. These things change the level of threat being faced, the degree of opposition, the difficulty of proceeding - they change everything. Of course it has a material effect with regards to the size and severity of the problem. Does it have such a material effect on the morality of the position held? The resolution is important for legitimacy - something our Iraq escapade lacked. Of course it is important for legitimacy but if that is the only reason for trying to acquire it (under false pretences if the actual reason is regime change and not that presented in the words of the actual resolution) then the legitimacy is moot (as it ever is, probably). There will be political confusion in the area for decades. We manage it even with our "mature democracies", so why would nations with less history of having a range of ways for people to interact with and challenge the state have it easier? I'm not saying that they should. What I was doing was proffering my opinion that actions taken mainly for what I suspect is the actual reason for the likes of the UK, US et al getting so exercised over Libya may not produce what they intend (i.e. a better situation for them in the future than it is now). If it is all about the morality of saving innocents then the quantity in danger or the methods used should not be of concern. If it is about making the world a safer place (even just for those taking the action) then those taking decisions should consider the potential consequences and what they intend to do after others take the actions on their behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yes, it makes a material (no pun intended) difference to the amount of deaths, and the speed with which he can consolidate his position. These things change the level of threat being faced, the degree of opposition, the difficulty of proceeding - they change everything. Of course it has a material effect with regards to the size and severity of the problem. Does it have such a material effect on the morality of the position held? Yes, it does. If we choose to tackle Fred West rather than Adolf Hitler, in the knowledge of the activities and scale of activities of both of them, then we have made a morally reprehensible choice. If we take an action tomorrow rather than today and in the meantime a predictable wrong has occurred, then we should not claim that we should be judged only by the narrowly defined effect of what we did, rather than the consequences of what we chose to defer. What is happening in Bahrein is wrong. If we chose to focus on that instead of Libya, both being within our power to address, that would be a morally wrong decision, because the scale of wrongdoing is not comparable between the two, though the Bahrein mob are also a bunch of words removed. The resolution is important for legitimacy - something our Iraq escapade lacked. Of course it is important for legitimacy but if that is the only reason for trying to acquire it (under false pretences if the actual reason is regime change and not that presented in the words of the actual resolution) then the legitimacy is moot (as it ever is, probably). Legitimacy is in the gift of the giver. If other countries have chosen to legitimise a certain course of action, that is their choice, and I welcome it. You will note that they have tried by a form of words to circumscribe the extent of actions on our part which they are prepared to legitimise, so perhaps they quite sensibly have the same reservations about our motives and our possible misuse of authority. So they should, given the charade of Iraq. But the legitiimacy granted to our actions is not less because our motives are suspect; the extent granted may be, but what is granted is not somehow qualified. There will be political confusion in the area for decades. We manage it even with our "mature democracies", so why would nations with less history of having a range of ways for people to interact with and challenge the state have it easier? I'm not saying that they should. What I was doing was proffering my opinion that actions taken mainly for what I suspect is the actual reason for the likes of the UK, US et al getting so exercised over Libya may not produce what they intend (i.e. a better situation for them in the future than it is now). If it is all about the morality of saving innocents then the quantity in danger or the methods used should not be of concern. If it is about making the world a safer place (even just for those taking the action) then those taking decisions should consider the potential consequences and what they intend to do after others take the actions on their behalf. No, it's not all about morality. Cameron has clearly stated that there are both moral and practical concerns, and he is right to admit this. In respect of the moral concerns, numbers and methods do matter. It's worse to kill a million than to kill one, in any imaginable world I would want to be part of. As for considering potential consequences and what you do after, nice idea, bit harder in practice. The two big stories this evening, the reaction to the "ceasefire" and the Japanese nuclear plant, suggest that our ability to identify possible consequences and plan for them is pretty limited, in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Yes, it does. Therein lies the first issue I take with your position. If we choose to tackle Fred West rather than Adolf Hitler, in the knowledge of the activities and scale of activities of both of them, then we have made a morally reprehensible choice. That is (perhaps) the morality of the actions we choose to take rather than the morality of the actions we choose to condemn. It's also a choice of one versus another rather than a moral case against a type of action. It's a moral case that you demonstrably understand but one which you choose to twist towards the position you take. You are Tony Blair and I claim some interest in one of your tax avoiding enterprises in the Channel Islands. If we take an action tomorrow rather than today and in the meantime a predictable wrong has occurred, then we should not claim that we should be judged only by the narrowly defined effect of what we did, rather than the consequences of what we chose to defer. By a similar token if we take an action today under the apparent auspices of intending only one thing whilst all the same intending something else (using the first as an expedient moral justification) and, in the future, the potential consequences that we initially chose to ignore become reality, by what ought we to be judged? What is happening in Bahrein is wrong. If we chose to focus on that instead... Who has said 'instead'? I haven't. You have chosen to run down that road in the hope of running far enough away from the actual question that you do not hear it. Legitimacy is in the gift of the giver That's rather trite. But the legitiimacy granted to our actions is not less because our motives are suspect... It depends upon how one defines legitimacy (hence the previous point about things in this sphere being moot). No, it's not all about morality. Cameron has clearly stated that there are both moral and practical concerns, and he is right to admit this. He may be right to admit it but where he may be wrong is to use the one to support the other. In respect of the moral concerns, numbers and methods do matter. Do you have a table indicating the respective numbers and methods which breach each particular moral barricade? Are there some specific matrices that ought to arouse an increased moral interest? As for considering potential consequences and what you do after, nice idea, bit harder in practice. Of course it's **** hard. It's the world. If it were piss easy then some people knocking their heads together on a football forum would come out with the solution and we could all **** off home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Snowy, simple question, what in your opinion should the UK have done in the case of Libya? Do you think the UK's actions are right or wrong in this specific case and why do you hold that position? If you think we should also be acting simultaneously in the various countries you listed then how do you propose we resource and pay for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I thought there was a ceasefire in Libya?....... silly me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts