[quote=“Tigerman”]
Libya militias, army torturing detainees…
Eh? Plus ça change?
We helped topple Gaddafi for this?
This is why New War doesn’t work. It simply invites chaos. It’s ALMOST stupid to say it invites chaos at no cost to the far superior military powers.
OT: I heard that Iraq was getting more dictatorial again…if it’s true, thank god.
Well, its a good thing this torture isn’t being carried out by US soldiers/CIA at Gitmo. Because, that would be really bad!
Well, its a good thing this torture isn’t being carried out by US soldiers/CIA at Gitmo. Because, that would be really bad![/quote]
Send in the UN Peace keepers…that’ll teach them to behave themselves!… :roflmao:
Why am I not surprised? 
Canadian expats behaving badly yet again! 
Trying to rescue a Gaddafi? :loco: 
This from the New York Times:
Libya Struggles to Curb Militias as Chaos Grows
Chaos grows?
Where is the international community lending a hand?
[color=#0000FF]
Why Libya Is Becoming More Dangerous After Gaddafi’s Fall
[/color]
Say What!??? 
:ohreally: How can this be?
I thought they were all united, like, and revolutionizing for a shared purpose?
Yikes!
Mass detentions? Torture? :eh: 
Its a good thing we got rid of Gadaffi, isn’t it! 
It gives me the giggles that you supported the war on Saddam but continue to pose as though this gets your knickers in a knot.
Why?
You know the reason I am posting this. No contradiction on my part.
Didn’t you complain about the mess the invasion of Iraq made in Iraq?
Certainly. The invasion of Iraq made a mess of Iraq. Providing air support (and weapons and intel) to the right side ensured that a pre-existing mess in Libya was resolved in the least bad available manner.
Origins, costs and consequences all radically different.
I’m sorry, but, that’s just complete :no-no: . Iraq was already a big mess long before the invasion.
The Islamist militia rebel groups? They’re the right side? Based on what criteria? The militias are detaining, torturing, killing people left and right. Libya is a smoldering mess, NOW. There was no real reason to assist the rebel militias in a civil war in Libya. We didn’t make anything better there.
What pre-existing mess?
So, if we assist in fanning the flames of a civil war and then pick a side to help, and then the country goes into the shitter, that’s a least bad available manner? What action did you counsel for Iraq?
Indeed…
Libya remains unsettled. There are reports of fresh fighting among rebels, and of 70 deaths and another 150 casualties in the town of Sabha. This news comes after news of tribal clashes in southern Libya just a few days ago, where at least 30 were killed.
Libyans are still fleeing across the Med, and many are paying a terrible price for their efforts. And there are fresh reports of NATO failing to rescue distressed migrant boats.
Is NATO dropping the ball here? Gadaffi was an SOB, for certain. But, he was no threat to NATO nor to his own people, and then only when they rebelled.
So, now what? If, as the argument went, we had a R2P (responsibility to protect) when we thought Gadaffi was going to massacre the people in the rebellious city of Benghazi, what now is our responsibility?
Gadhaffi was no threat to his own people?
Right.
Now if you said things were better off overall under Gadhaffi you might have a point unless they can get their act together there, but a lot of this was going to happen anyway as Gadhaffi centralized all power through himself, there are no structures to bind the country.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Gadhaffi was no threat to his own people?
Right.[/quote]
Like I said… Gadaffi was a SOB. But, he was not an immediate threat to the Libyan people until they rebelled. There are nasty, inept, corrupt leaders all over the world. But, we leave most of them alone. We chose to act in Libya. We encouraged the rebellion, which likely… arguably caused more loss of life and destruction than would Gadaffi putting down the rebellion have.
But, I’m not asking about or arguing that. I’m asking specifically… if we had a R2P before, what now is our responsibility to Libya?
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“headhonchoII”]Gadhaffi was no threat to his own people?
Right.[/quote]
Like I said… Gadaffi was a SOB. But, he was not an immediate threat to the Libyan people until they rebelled. There are nasty, inept, corrupt leaders all over the world. But, we leave most of them alone. We chose to act in Libya. We encouraged the rebellion, which likely… arguably caused more loss of life and destruction than would Gadaffi putting down the rebellion have.
But, I’m not asking about or arguing that. I’m asking specifically… if we had a R2P before, what now is our responsibility to Libya?[/quote]
I assume, you are referring to NATO? As a military alliance they would have no further responsibility. IMHO, they should not have got involved at all, as they did more worse than good.
This problem should now fall under the UN. The problem there is that the UN is the most useless, corrupt organisation on the planet, with zero power or credibility.
My god, look at the UN debacle with Syria.
What the ignorant who love to shout democracy for all fail to often understand is that unfortunately, in many Arab countries a strongman is needed to keep the whole mess together.
There same people are the ones scratching their heads in bewilderment when it all goes to shit.
If this mess ever settles, which is extremely unlikely, with all the warring clans, blood feuds, warlords, religious extremists etc, the body count will make Gadaffi look like the tooth fairy.
Riiiight. The same excuse trotted out to defend dictatorships everywhere. Disproved, time and again.
Democracy is tough to get right. The process is messy, and frequently (nearly always) violent.
Well the UN was at the lead heading BACK into Iraq until the first bombing… then, they all ran away despite being needed most and the last time that I checked the mandate was to resolve these types of conflicts… oh well… when the going gets tough the UN gets going… out the door.
Of course, the UN was the lead organization in setting up the Oil for Food program and we all know what a success that was. Why doubt its ability to deal with Syria and Libya? That is just wrong…