Libya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

I have never really understood the zen philosophy, so I didn't understand the analogy either.

---

Of course you do - it's the whole point of this thread.

Perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

...Over the years, the tone of criticism from the US to the China has certainly mellowed down a lot.

---

Tone on China three decades ago was "foreign affairs" BS when the biggest problems we had was their redder neighbor to the northwest and their silly bully cousins to the southeast. As the surrounding situation changed we decided to play ping-pong because no one gets hurt or sweats too much in that game...

Quote:

---

...picking its wars based on convenience and gains to be made, not on the basis of some idealistic principles. Which doesn't surprise me, of course.

---

Again - of course - why would it surprise you? State and local laws are "crafted and considered" against their cost and benefit all the time. We are considering laxing the laws on certain recreational drugs in some states here because the "cost of prosecuting" these offenders is too prohibitive.

It's always been about return on investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

...If it's not really between the US and Libya, why is Obama making such statements? These should come from either the NATO or the UN. And arming the rebels is not really part of the UN resolutions, is it?

---

Actually "arming" anyone in Libya was disallowed in the prior resolution and this latest resolution for air space control specifically "re-allowed" arming for support of the resistance. Hillary spuns that point very well on CBS-radio in NYC a few days ago - although her delivery and sly laughs on the situation show her to be absolulely no statesman.

And Obama - he's 14 months into hoping he can finally say something in advance of a situation unfolding so that it appears that he is actually commanding something.

Foreign affairs was so much easier before we allowed the world to communicate so effortlessly.

Now we all see the world for what it is (flag moving? wind moving? no just some packets on the net...) and it ain't pretty.

At least it's all in the mind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

Now we all see the world for what it is (flag moving? wind moving? no just some packets on the net...) and it ain't pretty.

---

Dude, I understood that, and that is one hell of a thought. Wish I could rate you!

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Dude, I understood that.

---

I knew you did - that was the royal "you" I was speaking to!

Sorry fact is that rant is coming from a sad source - a truly disenfranchised human finally seeing how our government works. I grew up in the 60's - entered the working world in the late 70's - I actually fondly remember our Reagan days - our salad days were nice. So what we had a small oil problem in the mid 70's - that seemed to go away on it's own (now I know better...)

My state gave us Senator Dodd - who slept with the bankers letting them usurp his power...

I read an editorial yesterday about how it's "creative" and "labor" and "management" groups that make our capitalist world grow. Well "creative" - that's me - I can understand that fully. People like me all over the world - lots on this forum.

"labor" - I know lots of these people - they work hard.

"management" - they suck - they are all about the almightly dollar. That's why we shipped our "labor" overseas - it's cheaper - wow - they followed their natural course - taught in classes at college - on money borrowed from banks (hate that Dodd).

Now our "labor" has nothing to do.

And this editorial went on to say we need more "innovation" and "entreprenurialship" (sp?) to get us out of this problem.

Wait - I'm not that stupid - burned once - twice - that hurts.

Our tax dollars bailed out our banks (hate that Dodd) and they now won't lend us any money (hate that Dodd).

Policies created by Dodd and his croney of crooks over the past 30 years led to the crisis we are in financially here - and oil is too damn expensive and they can't seem to keep control over it - it must be driving them crazy...

Filling my oil tank used to cost $800 a year - now it costs $800 a fill up! And if it's cold I can burn a tank up in less than two months.

And now he's going to be in charge of the Motion Picture association - let's see...

Connecticut has a growing movie production industry - we might see that as Dodd being good to us - no - I'm not that stupid - he's just following the course of "most gain" for him...

I'm right smack in the middle of all the corporate monsters running the Libya situation.

GE is 20 miles away (jet engines - toasters - refrigerators - a few failed nuclear power plants in Japan - oops).

Sikorsky is 5 miles away (helicopters with wheels (and guns) - you've seen them - "skids are for kids" is the saying around here).

Electric boat - an hours drive past the Indian casinos (got to allow them to have a thriving gambling economy on native land - isn't all the land native?) - oh back to those boats - really submarines - you don't get to see them - they hide well (and each has a GE reactor running it!).

Pratt and Whitney about 50 minutes - more jet engines.

They actually make swiss army knives in my city - amazing heh? Not really a tool of war like the ones above...

I guess I should smile pleasantly on the fact that Wiffle balls were invented in the city I live in now and are still manufactured here (at least I hope they are).

I always prided myself on my sarcasm - born in NYC gets you this naturally. But when I saw those two towers crash - towers I watched get built as a young boy from my house - I can only say that I'm sad for the world and everyone in it. People are mad enough at two buildings with 3000 people in them to kill them all - over oil.

It's always been about oil.

It's not the management which is bad. It's still the people who practise it.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

It's not the management which is bad. It's still the people who practise it.

.

---

Its like everything, there are good people involved and bad people involved. Whenever you say any group is good or bad it is likely you are ignoring the part of the group that doesn't fit your view. You start generalizing and straying from the truth.

@honeybee, just wanted to point out something you missed. The US parked a fleet of warships between China and Tiawan when China was threatening. There are tons of facts that contradict your viewpoint. Try to prove yourself wrong, just for ten minutes. The amount of information you learn WILL surprise you. And I would love to hear the excuses you build on the facts that contradict your opinion.

Oh, I wouldn't say the US is all bad. There are some good parts, but they aren't the Iraqi, Afghani or the Libyan wars. For that matter, even Taiwan is important. Don't they produce HTC phones? And if the US could park its warships between China and Taiwan, why wouldn't they create a no-fly zone over Tibet? Why not park them a little closer to Myanmar?

When the twin towers fell, invading Afghanistan was for hunting down bin Laden, and invading Iraq was to eliminate the WMDs. The WMDs proved to be a blatant lie, and bin Laden has yet to be found. Soon after it emerged that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, the focus of the war suddenly changed to regime change. Since all the perpetrators would get a share of the loot, nobody questioned the real motives or the justness of the move to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.

Who equipped the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan? Who brought up Al Qaeda when they were fighting the Russians? It's the same thing with Gaddafi when he came to power in Libya decades ago, and now the US is planning to arm and fund the rebels in Libya for another regime change. A few years down the line the new Libyan government will have fallen out of favour of the US and there will be another regime change.

Do you want to call these all figments of my own imagination?

.

I think the UN need to send in some firepower because of the rebels have hit a huge roadblock of sorts. That is the rebels have be losing ground with their current situation I don't think that can get pass the above mention blockage.

Quote:

---

Do you want to call these all figments of my own imagination?

---

Not at all. We all know the US in particular (although we in the UK have not exactly got a great recent record) has ended up fighting the very people it armed a decade earlier.

I really do think that there is a difference between the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts and Libya though.

I guess the real test will be how it all ends, whether the UN leave a mess in Libya or a country with the seeds of there own democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Not at all. We all know the US in particular (although we in the UK have not exactly got a great recent record) has ended up fighting the very people it armed a decade earlier.

I really do think that there is a difference between the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts and Libya though.

I guess the real test will be how it all ends, whether the UN leave a mess in Libya or a country with the seeds of there own democracy.

---

Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, again, I can't help but wonder if Libya will ever be as safe as it was earlier. While living under Saddam's rule may have been less than what we in democratic countries take for granted, living under a daily threat of suicide bombings certainly has to be worse. Libya may not turn out to be any different.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Don't they produce HTC phones? And if the US could park its warships between China and Taiwan, why wouldn't they create a no-fly zone over Tibet?

---

Is Tibet crying out for help? No. Are any other countries insisting they get help? No. Are people dying because of governmental attacks? No.
what about Myanmar? Remember Vietnam? Some people wanted our help, others did not. It turned out to be a mess. Myanmar would likely be one also. Fools don't learn from their mistakes. My government could be good sometimes, could be bad sometimes. But thankfully they are not foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

When the twin towers fell, invading Afghanistan was for hunting down bin Laden, and invading Iraq was to eliminate the WMDs. The WMDs proved to be a blatant lie, and bin Laden has yet to be found. Soon after it emerged that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, the focus of the war suddenly changed to regime change.

---

I believed at the time and I still believe now, the purpose of the war in Iraq was to get rid of Huessein. He attacked Iran (although this only hedges my belief, I don't believe the powers that pushed for the war cared either way), paid suicide bombers to kill civilians in Israel, attacked his own people, attacked Kuwait. If there are people who can't see he was a bad man they should invest in glasses. The WMD is only a lie if you know it is not true when it is spoken. If you think they were lying about it then that means you think our government is perfect and can not make mistakes. Thanks for the kind thought, but I know they make mistakes. And that is one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Since all the perpetrators would get a share of the loot, nobody questioned the real motives or the justness of the move to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter..

---

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

@honeybee, I know our government is not perfect, and they sometimes lie and make mistakes. But your thoughts are so one-sided and fact-ignoring I am merely presenting some of the numerous things you are over-looking. Ignoring key facts will make your beliefs seem true. I'll bet you are one of those conspiracy theorists. Yes? No? If your interested in pushing your beliefs, then you are doing fine. If you're interested in the truth, you need to look at more than what you want to see, you need to be able to look at something from all angles. Not just your own.

Quote:

---

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

---

Well put, I dont believe that the American Government went into Iraq with the idea of making money it just doesn't make sense, and if they did it was misguided, War is expensive very expensive.

Separately from this I do believe (believe is the wrong word hear really as there is plenty of factual evidence to show that it happened) that certain figures (Rumsfeld in particular) within the US government made the most of the situation to award contracts to companies that they were on the board of making themselves and there friends millions and millions of dollars.

Anyway lets see what actually happens in Libya before we start calling it the next Iraq the situation in the country is far different that in Iraq so it is difficult to predict the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Anyway lets see what actually happens in Libya before we start calling it the next Iraq the situation in the country is far different that in Iraq so it is difficult to predict the outcome.

---

That is probably the wisest statement in this whole post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

If you think they were lying about it then that means you think our government is perfect and can not make mistakes. Thanks for the kind thought, but I know they make mistakes.

---

Hmmm - I think that's a quite deliberate syllogism. You can't conclude he thinks your government are perfect simply because he believes they lied on one topic.

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

Boy is your mind set on money. If you were in our government, then I might believe you. The war cost much more than anyone gained, so any loot theory is so one-sided it is ludicrous.

---

That isn't true on any level (except the first sentence). For one thing, the people who planned the war didn't plan for it to turn out the way it did. So their motivations have to be evaluated on what their expectations were, not on what the final result ended up being.

Second, there were certainly people who profitted greatly from the war. They weren't the ones that had to pay for it, but some of them were in positions where they could push for it, and some did. Others expected to profit enormously from the war, though they didn't.

There was an enormous cost born by US taxpayers current and future. That's true, but that money went somewhere. Not all of the people who received the money supported the war at any time, but some did. Some saw the profit to come from the war, others not so much.

Any loot theory is entirely valid. War like that is effectively a massive outpouring of US dollars, and there have been people who have seen it as a windfall since at least the Civil War. Somebody stood to profit, and somebody DID profit. The only question is whether those groups influenced the war itself.

@Shaggy, you forgot to mention the people who decided to go to war are not necessarily the people who profited from it, nor is there any evidence that they decided to go to war based on profit of any kind.

You also forgot to mention that a lot of the profit that was discussed (like contracts) is based on us succeeding, which is also not guaranteed. Based on that statement, there is NO profit guaranteed. We could've been beat out like Vietnam. So anyone who is expecting to make a profit be it for themselves or assuming (we all know what that word means) someone else is thinking in hindsight only. Before the war there was no hindsight. No one knew what would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So their motivations have to be evaluated on what their expectations were, not on what the final result ended up being.

---

Correct. Anyone who expects anyone to automatically win a fight is not usually someone smart enough to be put in a position in charge of large contracts in the first place. Therefore there aren't any expectations of big contracts. It was in large part, an after thought. And if someone used their hindsight to make sense of it today, they can be easily mislead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Any loot theory is entirely valid. War like that is effectively a massive outpouring of US dollars, and there have been people who have seen it as a windfall since at least the Civil War. Somebody stood to profit, and somebody DID profit. The only question is whether those groups influenced the war itself.

---

That again is hindsight. Talk to a business person, you can learn something from them. Basically (and this is the short, short version) they wait on the sidelines and pounce on an opportunity. That is what happened.

Quote:

---

Axis and Allies

---

I salute your taste sir. I wasn't mad keen on the second edition (it had alot more flexibility but lost the ultra fine balance of the first) but me and my mates must have put in at least a thousand hours on the original over the years.


I'm not sure I buy the argument that this is about oil, Libya simply isn't a big enough producer to be worth it. It is still about greed but this time it's greed for votes. Not acting was simply becoming untennable with the electorates of the countries involved.

edit>

Quote:

---

I think the UN need to send in some firepower because of the rebels have hit a huge roadblock of sorts. That is the rebels have be losing ground with their current situation I don't think that can get pass the above mention blockage.

---

If you've studied World War 2 this was entirely predictable and nothing to panic about. Warfare in Libya is entirely governed by Logistics because it basically consists of a coastal road through some unpopulated wilderness with a major urban cluster at either end. That means it's easy to attack from you home base and throw the enemy back across the wilderness. As you close on their home base, though, you're own suppply lines become strateched so, when the enemy counter attacks you get thrown all the way back to where you started. Gadaffi had logistics (note that's now happilly in the past tense) so he was able to push East. Once we cut off his logistics his advance stopped amd the rebels were able to counter attack. They never had any logistics so the attack was never going to entirely succeed. Now neither side has any so yo can expect to see this one bounce back and forth between Benghazi and Tripoli like a yoyo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'm not sure I buy the argument that this is about oil, Libya simply isn't a big enough producer to be worth it. It is still about greed but this time it's greed for votes. Not acting was simply becoming untennable with the electorates of the countries involved.

---

Oil production isn't as big a deal as oil supply and distribution - that's the factor I believe gave European nations cause to even look.

We go where ever the fight is because we make the gear to play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

@Shaggy, you forgot to mention the people who decided to go to war are not necessarily the people who profited from it, nor is there any evidence that they decided to go to war based on profit of any kind.

---

Agreed. I think the leardership that went to war in Iraq had little if any profit from the war, nor do I think they expected any monetary profit (perhaps a bit of electoral profit, but not monetary). Some of the people who pushed for the war certainly expected a profit, such as that guy (the name of whom has slipped my mind) who thought he could be installed as the new Iraq leader. Some of them probably influenced the decisions of the US leadership, but such is life.

The point is that lots of people profit from some wars, and some will influence the war, so the profit motive is quite plausible. After all, the people who expect to pay the cost are almost never the ones pushing for the war. A business man would be willing to invest a little if they expected a suitably larger return on that investment. There are certainly some who would see a war as an investment of cheap political capital in return for substantial monetary gain. Almost certainly that would not include the ones who actually have to fight the war or pay for it.

I don't understand why my Government does not want a regime change in Libya.

Personally I think the CIA or some other agency should just assassinate Kadhafi, which would give the rebels time to attack. and then Activision can make another Call of duty about it.

Quote:

---

I don't understand why my Government does not want a regime change in Libya.

---

I don't think that there's any debate that they want it. The question is whether they feel they can pursue it while retaining enough of moral authority to allow any subsequent regime they support to be seen as legitimate by the people of Libya and the rest of the Arab world. Prior to Afghanistan and Iraq, American foreign policy was generally viewed as benign and they probably could have pursued it while retaining moral authority but those two conflicts have raised enough questions to make it a very, very grey area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlindSniper

I don't understand why my Government does not want a regime change in Libya.

Personally I think the CIA or some other agency should just assassinate Kadhafi, which would give the rebels time to attack. and then Activision can make another Call of duty about it.

---

Well I would guess that gadaffi spends some good coin with them. And if you wish to assassinate him then you would have to go after his sons also.

If we allow that it is acceptable to kill the head of state of a foreign country that we are not at war with through the use of targeted assassination, what grounds would we use to suggest that another country should not do the same to us?

A sufficiently motivated assassin is VERY hard to stop.

@MarMan, could you please explain why your government should be so hell-bent on who is in power in Libya, when it couldn't strike a deal about its own finances barely minutes before the threat of a government shutdown? Is a possible regime change in Libya a greater priority than sorting out the internal woes of the US?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

@MarMan, could you please explain why your government should be so hell-bent on who is in power in Libya, when it couldn't strike a deal about its own finances barely minutes before the threat of a government shutdown? Is a possible regime change in Libya a greater priority than sorting out the internal woes of the US?

.

---

I do not follow politics, and if you have been keeping updated, you'll see my government is not the most interested government at all. I honestly don't care about my government's stance. You care more honeybee than I do.

If you take any of my opinions as meaning I think anything of the government at all then it would be an error.

I don't like bad people. And when 90% of the educated population think someone is bad, then they ARE bad. Even if they do good things, they are bad from a sociologically point of view. And I don't care if its illegal, I say ask them to go. If they don't, then tell them to go. If they don't then KILL THEM!!!!:bigyello: And the world will be a better place.

Every bad apple you take out of the apple basket improves the quality of the basket as a whole. Taking a bad apple out may not make it a good basket, but it is the best thing to do to move it away from bad towards good,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

I do not follow politics, and if you have been keeping updated, you'll see my government is not the most interested government at all. I honestly don't care about my government's stance. You care more honeybee than I do.

If you take any of my opinions as meaning I think anything of the government at all then it would be an error.

I don't like bad people. And when 90% of the educated population think someone is bad, then they ARE bad. Even if they do good things, they are bad from a sociologically point of view. And I don't care if its illegal, I say ask them to go. If they don't, then tell them to go. If they don't then KILL THEM!!!!:bigyello: And the world will be a better place.

Every bad apple you take out of the apple basket improves the quality of the basket as a whole. Taking a bad apple out may not make it a good basket, but it is the best thing to do to move it away from bad towards good,

---

Oh boy! You are absolutely right about improving the quality of the basket of apples by taking the bad ones out. The only small matter of who decides which apple is bad, however, would need to be addressed first. If you relied on 90% of the people who don't know anything about bad (or for that matter good) apples, you are more likely to make matters worse.

So who is this educated population, 90% of whom think someone is bad, that you are talking about? Is it the American population, or is it the people of Libya who have been telling about it? How do you decide it's really the 90% of the population that you hear, and not 90% of 0.0000009% of the total population?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

So who is this educated population, 90% of whom think someone is bad, that you are talking about? Is it the American population, or is it the people of Libya who have been telling about it? How do you decide it's really the 90% of the population that you hear, and not 90% of 0.0000009% of the total population?

.

---

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree. you may not, and that's OK. Society had some undefined rules that most people live by. Some people are ignorant of them, but that has no bearing of their necessity.

Put another way honeybee, how many children have you killed? How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose? Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree. you may not, and that's OK. Society had some undefined rules that most people live by. Some people are ignorant of them, but that has no bearing of their necessity.

Put another way honeybee, how many children have you killed? How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose? Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

---

My goodness, you are so fast in jumping to conclusions! Right now, I want to discuss about two issues: How many people really are included in your set of 90% of the 'educated population of the world', and secondly who decides which apples are bad.

When you say 90% of the educated population of the civilized world,

1. Is there any specific reason you want to exclude the educated population of the uncivlized world?
2. Care to explain which are these uncivilized populations that you have left out?
3. What defines civilized for you?
4. Do you expect everyone will share your definition of what is civilized?
5. Could you provide any numbers as to what is approximately the 100% of this educated civilized world of yours?
6. Can you really claim to have heard the opinions of 90% of the educated civlized world?
7. What makes you sure the educated population of the civlized world are capable of distinguishing good apples from bad ones?

.

@Honeybee, why did you not answer my questions? they would answer your if you took some time to think about it.

And, by the way, I asked you first and you ignored me, so if you want any answers, you need to refrain from ignoring me, or I will give you the same courtesy.

How many children have you killed?
How many people do you know?
How many people do you know who have killed children on purpose?
Do you like people who kill children on purpose?

If the answers to those questions don't enlighten you, then post your answers and I will clarify.

Those questions are irrelevant to the points I have raised, which is why I see no point in answering them. Now, if you cannot answer who those 90% people are and why they are more able to distinguish between good and bad apples, then we can safely conclude those are just your personal views and not, as you claim, those of '90% of the educated population of the civlized world'.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Those questions are irrelevant to the points I have raised, which is why I see no point in answering them. Now, if you cannot answer who those 90% people are and why they are more able to distinguish between good and bad apples, then we can safely conclude those are just your personal views and not, as you claim, those of '90% of the educated population of the civlized world'.

.

---

Those questions are indeed relevant. If you can not see it, then you are stuck in your static views with no hope of getting educated. The answers to those questions are only the begining of the evidence you do not wish to hear because it contradicts your opinion. To have a discussion and pick and choose which questions you will answer is to attempt to modify the talk to match your own point of view while dismissing facts that are contrary to it. It is also childish. So you are taking your ball and going home when things don't go your way.

Why even try to discuss anything then if you are so closed minded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

...answer who those 90% people are and why they are more able to distinguish between good and bad apples....

---

I know I'm in the 90% - I'm still looking for others!

And I like peaches :rolleyes:

At any rate - the only body that can make believe they represent the 90% is the UN.

And the UN voted.

And so it goes with representative "policy makers" - they don't actually represent 90% of the population.

I can appreciate why you two can't see eye to eye - there are thousands of facets.

btw - the apple and basket analogy is garbage. The particular bad apple we all speak of has been bad a long, long, long time. I don't see other "good" apples in my grocery store saying "let's keep rotten-boy-here happy and supported" and that will somehow make us shine more? Most of the time that rotten apple is just infecting the apples around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I can appreciate why you two can't see eye to eye - there are thousands of facets.

---

Well, it looks like anyone who questions Marman's assumptions automatically goes into the 10%. Hell, I might even accept his assumption that Gaddafi is bad. But I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a person who assumes you are a child killer and know and sympathize with child killers, just because you happen to present a different point of view.

.

Quote:

---

Well, it looks like anyone who questions Marman's assumptions automatically goes into the 10%. Hell, I might even accept his assumption that Gaddafi is bad. But I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a person who assumes you are a child killer and know and sympathize with child killers, just because you happen to present a different point of view.

---

Honeybee, that wasn't his point whether you agree with it or not. MarMan was talking about Morals.

There are some very basic shared values that not all but most of the countries and people in those countries in the world agree on. Virtually all countries have a law against Murder, have a law against rape e.t.c.

What (i believe - correct me if i am wrong) MarMan rather blunt point was do you agree that those thing are wrong.

If so then these thing are happening in Libya and are being perpetrated by gaddafi's troops against his own people, so is what is happening in Libya not also wrong ?

or along those lines, it is a moralistic argument, it is a bit black and white but there is some truth to it.

MarMan, what Honeybee is trying to get at is who decides what is right and wrong ??

If most of America thinks something is right, does that make it right ? what about if most people in India think it is wrong who has the moral authority ?

In Libya, the UN is backing one side over the other, but the UN only covers a small portion of the world countries, so does that in fact mean that it is those who have the military power to back it up that get to decided what is right or wrong? which is really what has been the case through out history.

I suppose we like to believe that we live in more enlightened times were might does not rule, but in reality we would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

...If most of America thinks something is right, does that make it right ? what about if most people in India think it is wrong who has the moral authority ?

---

Every single president in my living memory - along with Obama just two weeks ago - stated clearly that the US moral view is the approved moral view and that the other countries we call our allies agree with us and back that point of view.

Personally I know that "I don't know all the real facts" so I can't offer a truly accurate opinion.

And wikileaks has made it clear that our intelligence services are more like "spy-vs-spy" in some three stooges episode.

Quote:

---

...I suppose we like to believe that we live in more enlightened times were might does not rule, but in reality we would be wrong.

---

"Might" actually might be nicer then the reality of "greed and power" - which drives a facade of "might" but it's got selfish motivation at it's core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Honeybee, that wasn't his point whether you agree with it or not. MarMan was talking about Morals.

---

I lost him the moment he posted about child killings.

Anyways, there are different cultures and different civilizations with different customs and practices. Premarital sex in the US for e.g. has more become a norm, while in India it's still more of an exception. Would you say India is backward? Hardly!

Coming to Libya, did Gaddafi really kill children and women and innocent people? I wouldn't know, because if the rebels fired a shot wrong and killed an innocent civilian, their hands too are dirty. Here innocent meaning a neutral citizen siding with neither Gaddafi nor the Rebels.

Take the friendly fire incident. While rebels called it a blunder and demanded an apology, the NATO commander has refused to even acknowledge it as a mistake. Who is right?

Similarly if the US is now saying Gaddafi must go, I would want to see some good solid proof to decide for myself if Gaddafi really should go. We have already seen in case of Iraq and the WMDs how the US went ahead with the invasion on the basis of false evidence.

As far as the UN and NATO are concerned, it's again debatable if they are wholly impartial. So a vote in the UN wouldn't reflect the reality, at best the existing political balance.

.

@NeedSomeAnswers, thank you for a better explanation. I have a difficult time explaining myself sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

MarMan, what Honeybee is trying to get at is who decides what is right and wrong ??

---

I can answer that question, its easy really. Maybe not so easy to put into words.

Society does. Mob rules does. If everybody accepts something, then it is OK. If everybody rebukes something, it is not OK.

For a not so good example:
If everybody in an area like to play loud music at 2 a.m. then it is deemed OK, aka good. No one will complain and everyone will be happy. If one person doesn't like it, then they will be shunned by the community, possibly disliked, but definitely unhappy about the loud music everyone else likes. Who is right? Well its not a good example because not much bad happens whether you hear music or not. People need to learn to live together in peace. Murder is about as far from peace as you cacn go.

And everyone I've spoken with happens to agree (I'm at 100% here) that killing a child by accident by shooting at someone who is purposefully trying to kill you is incomparable to indiscriminately lobbing bombs into a town. Sometimes people's arguments are so weak they need to twist things around to have a sense of something, I do not know what.

KILL Gadaffy!!! I wanna see his head on a pike!!

The good thing about someone as bad as he is would be that the laws of probability mean it is unlikely (but possible) that any potential replacement may not be as bad. They could be worse, but what do you do, leave a poor situation poor, or try to improve.

One interesting FACT:
As education increases, superstition decreases.

It's two separate societies that we are talking about. It's sort of like two biker gangs with different cultures and different rules. When they clash over something, who is to say who was at fault?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

It's two separate societies that we are talking about. It's sort of like two biker gangs with different cultures and different rules. When they clash over something, who is to say who was at fault?

.

---

Incorrect. It is two separate societies that YOU are talking about.

I am refering to the human race inhabiting earth. Now I see the problem. I am looking at the big picture, planet-wise so to speak. Honeybee, you are thinking culture-minded, which is OK, but fails when addressing global problems.

I don't think you will understand, but I will try to explain.

You can have a home with two fishtanks. One tank may like the water more acidic than the other. That is fine because it does not affect the other. The temperature, however, in the home DOES affect both tanks and MUST be within a range where they both can survive, if not thrive.

Now humans are much more complex, and things affect the world that without putting a lot of thought in, you may think they are local when in fact they are not. This includes murder for no good reason.

Killing is not necessary, nor should it be tolerated. Look what Hitler did when people "minded thier own business". I know lots of people don't care, they don't seem to mind if others are suffering until it hits them, then they change their tune.

Look at the crusades for example, we know that they were wrong NOW. Back then they thought they were right. Think about what people will say 100 years from now. x amount of civilians were killed in Libya. You can say at least two things.

1. So many died. Why did no one help?
2. Good thing they had help otherwise more would've died.

I value life. I hate to see it wasted. No president, king, dictator or ruler's job is worth even one human life. Anyone who thinks it is should be shot. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. I value life and anyone who thinks it is OK to kill to get what they want is fair game for me. I want no death. If someone thinks it is OK to kill to get what they want, then I can play by their rules (I have to or I can die). I kill them and get all their future victims to live. I know I want no deaths, but you can't always get what you want. So I have to settle for one death of a bad man (which I would prefer to live if they would just stop killing people) as opposed to deaths of innocent people which include women and children.

And innocent people do die in war. But usually less then when you let a madman run lose. It is impossible to ALWAYS win and have the least good people die. But if you do not try, you will lose and more good people will die on average then have to.

How about
3. I can't believe they were stupid enough to interfere. Couldn't they see that it would antagonise the already beligerent and nuclear enabled arab world leading to global atomic war

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Gadaffi removed but you're trying to portray the situation as black and white when it's actually a sort of murky grey.