NATO intervention in Libya

[ArtDrake]

I'm not so up on my legal scorecount interpretation, so would you inform me as to which of 295 and 123 were for and against?

And next, why ought we as a country choose to interfere once more in the Middle East for the purpose of spreading democracy?

Freedom is always desirable, but it's a spectrum. In some cases, some are shackled to a pole, and shot if they speak. This is no freedom. Then, there are those that are living in a police state; they often have few freedoms, including speech, lack of curfews, expression of views, etc. There is America, in which there is much freedom, and we have issues with holy-book burning, neo-nazis, and protesting funerals. Great place, overall. Then, there is a complete lack of order. Very much freedom.

The point I make is that freedom in balance with order is difficult. In America, we find great balance. Elsewhere, others find great balance. In North Korea, some say people die too much in the name of order. In America, others still say people die too much in the name of order. Some enjoy freedom in both places. Some do not.

The choices a leader makes to balance freedom with order are subjective decisions that are always affecting real people that are influenced by their surroundings. Here, the point I make is that when two cultures meet that have differing views on order meet, there will be conflict. The faction that has the greater army size or power combined with its dedication to an emphasis on order will tend to prevail. America is far too large for any small nation to contest its military force, order or not, freedom or not.

However, I frown upon this conflict, as excess in either results in unhappiness, and the unhappiness in itself generates a rift or a power change in the country. The power change is usually good, and the rift is usually bad, as the extremes of either faction tend not to have a mediating opposition. That said, America should probably fix its own problems.

Finally, I'd rather you not epically slam the view I expressed. I know all the counterarguments, and it just all comes down to a difference in opinion, and neither of us will change the other's mind. If you do, I'll just have to assume you didn't read this bit. Capiche?

[SmartyPants]

Does anyone else think it is bull s**t that the bill that gives President Obama the authority to wage war against Libya, while forbidding him from using ground forces was rejected with a vote of 295-123.

I'm not so up on my legal scorecount interpretation, so would you inform me as to which of 295 and 123 were for and against?

Use your context clues.  123 for approval, 295 against approval

And next, why ought we as a country choose to interfere once more in the Middle East for the purpose of spreading democracy?

If the people of a nation desire freedom and democracy and we have the power to help them fight for it, then we should help them.

Freedom is always desirable, but it's a spectrum. In some cases, some are shackled to a pole, and shot if they speak. This is no freedom. Then, there are those that are living in a police state; they often have few freedoms, including speech, lack of curfews, expression of views, etc. There is America, in which there is much freedom, and we have issues with holy-book burning, neo-nazis, and protesting funerals. Great place, overall. Then, there is a complete lack of order. Very much freedom.

Are you really comparing tyrannical police states to "issues with holy-book burning, neo-nazis, and protesting funerals"?  That is like comparing the danger of guns to the danger of falling vending machines.  Clearly, freedom and democracy are better.

[ArtDrake]

My ideas are better than your ideas, eh? And using the word "tyrannical" to describe an opposing force or idea doesn't make you necessarily right.

And no, I was not directly comparing the two. Obviously, in America, we've found a happy medium, but the point is that extremes of either are necessarily evils, and thus the intervening gray area is all a matter of judgement.

[SmartyPants]

Freedom is always desirable, but it's a spectrum. In some cases, some are shackled to a pole, and shot if they speak. This is no freedom. Then, there are those that are living in a police state; they often have few freedoms, including speech, lack of curfews, expression of views, etc. There is America, in which there is much freedom, and we have issues with holy-book burning, neo-nazis, and protesting funerals. Great place, overall. Then, there is a complete lack of order. Very much freedom.

Are you really comparing tyrannical police states to "issues with holy-book burning, neo-nazis, and protesting funerals"?  That is like comparing the danger of guns to the danger of falling vending machines.  Clearly, freedom and democracy are better.

My ideas are better than your ideas, And using the word "tyrannical" to describe an opposing force or idea doesn't make you necessarily right.

Gaddafi publicly executes people who spoke against him on a regular basis.  I call that "tyrannical".  What do you call that?  Order?

And no, I was not directly comparing the two. Obviously, in America, we've found a happy medium, but the point is that extremes of either are necessary evils, and thus the intervening gray area is all a matter of judgement.

You think Muammar Gaddafi aka "mad dog of the Middle East" is better for the future of Libya then a functioning democracy?  Unlike you, I wouldn't call arresting political rivals and bombing innocent civilians as "necessary evils".

[ArtDrake]

I call it order taken to an extreme, to the former of your questions. It's more in that darker part of the gray area, but still justified, so yes to the latter.
"a.k.a." is an abbreviation. "aka" is simply the romaji Japanese for "red."

Next, I would like to address the point that nicknames and qualifiers drawn from either thin air or the last bits of a GI tract, such as "Mad Dog of the Middle East," do little to enhance your argument, despite the undeniable cadence and consonance about such a libel label.

Furthermore, I offer no opinion on which mode of governing of state should be more effective, but rather insist that a judgement of this nature belongs not in the hands of the U.S. of A., those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), nor those signing emergency UN resolutions.

And finally, im2smart4u, you're truly not living up to your name; indeed, I'm surprised at you -- you shock me:
you wouldn't describe the arrrest of political rivals and the bombing of innocent civilians as necessarily an evil?

[SmartyPants]

I call it order taken to an extreme, to the former of your questions. It's more in that darker part of the gray area, but still justified, so yes to the latter.

I guess we will leave this a difference in oppions.  You think a dictator holding public executions to silence critics is justified in the name of order, while I believe in freedom of speech.

"a.k.a." is an abbreviation. "aka" is simply the romaji Japanese for "red."

I assumed you would figure what "aka" met with little effort on your part.  Next time, I will know to think less of you.

Furthermore, I offer no opinion on which mode of governing of state should be more effective, but rather insist that a judgement of this nature belongs not in the hands of the U.S. of A., those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), nor those signing emergency UN resolutions.

USA, NATO, and UN are not fighting and dying for Libya's government to change.  The Libyan people chose to change thier government and NATO is supporting them in their fight.  The government of the people belongs to the people and not to one ruthless dictator who stole power through a coup.

And no, I was not directly comparing the two. Obviously, in America, we've found a happy medium, but the point is that extremes of either are necessarily evils, and thus the intervening gray area is all a matter of judgement.

You think Muammar Gaddafi aka "mad dog of the Middle East" is better for the future of Libya then a functioning democracy?  Unlike you, I wouldn't call arresting political rivals and bombing innocent civilians as "necessary evils".

And finally, im2smart4u, you're truly not living up to your name; indeed, I'm surprised at you -- you shock me:
you wouldn't describe the arrrest of political rivals and the bombing of innocent civilians as necessary evils?

A "necessary evil" is greenhouse gases, because it harmful to the ozone, but it is the result of jobs, electricity, and progress.  Taking away people lives and human rights are unjustifiable evils, because the ends don't remotely justify the means.

[ArtDrake]

I believe in freedom of speech, too; however, I also believe that the dictator has a right to hold an opinion about how to run his country that may or may not be as effective as the American system. Public executions maintain order, and this cannot be denied. However, it can be ineffective at times, as is evidenced by the chaos within Libya. Thus, the dictator was justified, but not just; he had effect, but was not effective.

The second of your comments is simply demeaning. First, it is eminently obvious that I was able to infer the meaning of your abbreviation, as you have spoken no Japanese in the past, are fond of using abbreviations, and were able to infer that I was referring to your use of the abbreviation, which I then criticized.

To the third of your comments, I respond that the idea of stealing power through a coup is ridiculous. Whomever it is that attempts a coup d'etat has already attained power. They simply appear to gain more power when those who were loyal to the previous ruler choose to alter their loyalties. If the loyalties of the people are never altered, it should be easy to remove or depose the new ruler, unless the rulers previously had enough military power to quash a people's rebellion and the preëxisting government, which implies the power was possessed before the coup, or poeple willingly changed their loyalties to make the situation as such. Either way, the power was not gained in the coup.

Finally, I believe that we are on the same side in this last issue. I have been using the adverb "necessarily," while you have made the mistake of interpreting me as a bad speller like so many others on the forum, and believed me to be using the adjective "necessary," albeit incorrectly.
Extremes of freedom and order are necessarily (that is to say, "they must be") evils. Your continued misquotes and mistaken inferences have me insisting that militaristic extremes in the name of order are necessary evils. This they are not.

[SmartyPants]

I believe in freedom of speech, too; however, I also believe that the dictator has a right to hold an opinion about how to run his country that may or may not be as effective as the American system. Public executions maintain order, and this cannot be denied. However, it can be ineffective at times, as is evidenced by the chaos within Libya. Thus, the dictator was justified, but not just; he had effect, but was not effective.

I don't think dictators have the right to anything.  Anyone who holds power by killing and suppressing the people he is suppose to represent is not a legitimate leader of a nation.

To the third of your comments, I respond that the idea of stealing power through a coup is ridiculous. Whomever it is that attempts a coup d'etat has already attained power. They simply appear to gain more power when those who were loyal to the previous ruler choose to alter their loyalties. If the loyalties of the people are never altered, it should be easy to remove or depose the new ruler, unless the rulers previously had enough military power to quash a people's rebellion and the preëxisting government, which implies the power was possessed before the coup, or poeple willingly changed their loyalties to make the situation as such. Either way, the power was not gained in the coup.

If Robert Gates, Obama's Secretary of Defense, was able to convince the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's Cabinet to exile the president, abolish Congress and the Supreme Court, and appoint Robert Gates as President for life, then he wouldn't be stealing power from the US People?  And Gaddafi did gain power through a coup d'état.

Finally, I believe that we are on the same side in this last issue. I have been using the adverb "necessarily," while you have made the mistake of interpreting me as a bad speller like so many others on the forum, and believed me to be using the adjective "necessary," albeit incorrectly.
Extremes of freedom and order are necessarily (that is to say, "they must be") evils. Your continued misquotes and mistaken inferences have me insisting that militaristic extremes in the name of order are necessary evils. This they are not.

That's a fair view.

[ArtDrake]

First off, I'd like to apologize for my resentful and crude tone. You don't deserve that; you're just arguing the case for American ideals and freedom, and if anyone should be resented, it's me. But I think that if you keep an open mind, I make a bit of sense here and there.

There appears to be a slight confusion of terms here. When I say dictator, I'm thinking of a couple of meanings:
"A magistrate without colleague, holding full executive authority for a term, usually to conduct a war."
"A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government."
"A ruler with the highest level of authority."

Whereas the meaning that you appear to be operating on the assuption of my use of is:
"A tyrannical boss or authority figure."

My belief is that both figures hold authority, and have rights, tyrannical or otherwise. I also would like to inquire as to whether one of the premises on which you operate is that a role of government is the represent the people. That is all.

Now, to your next comment, I answer "no." A lower court might sentence them all for treason, Internal Affairs might deal with the problem, and the military, headed by generals and admirals, might choose to quickly remove the new government and replace Obama quickly. Either way, if loyalties remain unchanged, coups without military power ought not succeed.

Also, I believe that this point is a good checkpoint in the discussion. It clearly describes our somewhat opposing views, and all subsequent argument will stem from this point. As such, I will be keeping the topic address somewhere in my files.

Lastly, I hope my lack of use of the "quote" tags doesn't distress you; I find it takes up a bit too much space for my purposes, and spoilers simply look untidy.
topic=867.msg37998#msg37998

[SmartyPants]

"A magistrate without colleague, holding full executive authority for a term, usually to conduct a war."

If we were talking about the Roman period, then this is the definition to use.

"A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government."
"A ruler with the highest level of authority."

This is the modern use of the word "dictator.

I also would like to inquire as to whether one of the premises on which you operate is that a role of government is the represent the people. That is all.

Thomas Jefferson wrote "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

Now, to your next comment, I answer "no." A lower court might sentence them all for treason, Internal Affairs might deal with the problem, and the military, headed by generals and admirals, might choose to quickly remove the new government and replace Obama quickly. Either way, if loyalties remain unchanged, coups without military power ought not succeed.

1) The lower court wouldn't have the power to enforce that ruling.
2) I don't know what Internal Affairs is, but if it law enforcement, then it would be under the exative branch which is now in the hands of the new government.
3) I don't think you know what the Joint Chiefs of Staff is.  They are the head of the navy, army, air force, and marine corps.  Plus, the head of the military would be the President and then the Secretary of Defense.  If Gates removes the President, then we would be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
4) I don't think you are seeing my point at all.  Winning the loyalty of the top of the government and military doesn't make you the legitimate ruler of a country.  It make you a dic-tator.

Duckling, can you stop messageing me, while blocking my replies.  It is annoying.

[ArtDrake]

I'm putting the mainstream conversation on hold for a moment.

What replies? I haven't recieved any. Perhaps they simply aren't coming through.

[SmartyPants]

What replies? I haven't recieved any. Perhaps they simply aren't coming through.

My point exactly.  You blocked me from sending you messages a long time ago, so I am unable to reply to your messages.

Change of topic: France said they have airdropped weapons to the rebels in the mountains.  I don't know how to feel about this because there are consequences for arming and not arming the rebels.  If we arm the rebels then there is a chance that those weapons get into the hands of terrorist.  On the other, if the rebels don't have enough firepower to win the war, then we have a dictator who is known for using terrorist attacks for revenge.

My major consern right now is that the rebels say that they never got the weapons.  So who has them???

[ArtDrake]

I honestly don't know how to block messages. Could you tell me how, so I can find out how to unblock them?

Well, I think that this result of France's actions will reflect badly on them, and that critics will say that the weapon drops were ill-thought-out.

[bugfartboy]

Ducky, the blacklist is under "Personal Message Options" on your profile page. I'm gonna delete this when it's no longer necessary. You should just be able to take his name off the list.