Joelcool7 said:
dib8rman said:
Misnomer ahoy!
Actually it's a civil unrest not a civil war.
The difference is that there is still law being enforced which the protestors are breaking. ^_^
The other difference is that there is no conflicting ideology or essentially the protestors don't have a plan beyond disrupting the government.
It could be argued that they want a change, but then the question comes up: "What change? How will they go about this change if Khadafy steps down?"
They could surprise me tomorrow and declare war on Khadafy’s regime, which means they are doing more than having a civil war, it would bring a warmth to my heart if they actually for once started a revolution. (It's been so long since the world saw one people seem to have forgotten what one looks like.)
The Declaration clearly has to announce demands for change that they see as impossible with the current regime and so war must be made. ^_^
As it stands now, the US has no business with Libya and it makes me suspicious that the US is getting involved there when they didn't with Tunisia, Bahrain or Egypt. As it's always been and should remain America and Americans should feel morally moved by what is happening there but recognize that it's a different country.
Now if the insurgence requires aide then American interest should be weighed and a response made accordingly.
In accordance to the Genocide Act though which is the only reason the US or any nation should get involved in Libya would be if there are signs of ethnic cleansing or of things leading to genocide. I believe Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a signatory of that act as well anyway so that would be a legal obligation.
|
Umm when another Government is formed within the same country and the rebels and protestors are uniting to form a new armed forces to fight the Libyan Government militarily then I think that is called a civil war. Fact is in Benghazi a new Government was formed according to the news reports I'm watching. The Government is made up of defectors from both Libya's Government and armed forces.
According to a news report I saw yesterday the defecting military units are arming protestors and trying to create an army. They are organizing units and fighting with weapons against the Libyan regime. Also news reports indicate that this new Government wants democracy once Gaddafi is gone. So I'd say while not well organised they do have an indication as to where they want to go.
The fact that the protestors are uniting into military units and fighting with tanks and have over 10,000 tons of ammunition and even more weapons. Indicates this has evolved from a protest into a full blown military operation. Now I'd consider that a civil war, when a large group of a countries population take up arms to over throw their Government that is a revolution or civil war.
Thats why I don't understand the fact that the rebels are calling for more protests. I guess fighting an all out civil war is still a last resort and they are hoping Gaddafi will step down willingly (Which he won't)!
As for US intervention, why didn't they get militarily involved in Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia? Simple all three countries while they may have gotten alittle violent stepped down fairly peacefully. The Egyptian army didn't start mowing down protestors, Bahrain did not start dropping bombs on innocent civilians. Even in the case of Libya the US is still reluctant to start any kind of military intervention, if they do do so it will be after the UN orders action.
As for the Arab League, it would be nice to see them involved in an operation to help the Libyan people. Not to mention why should the west always clean up the worlds messes, it would be nice to see other countries stabalizing the world.
|
One can always argue that something is one way but could be something else.
For example the in 1969 Ireland had gone into heavy rioting for government reformation, though they had the loyalists versus armed militia versus eventually the Royal Regiment of Wales: Just because an organized armed group of ex or paramilitary decide to fight their government doesn't escalate the mood from civil unrest to civil war.
The only fair argument that could be made is that it is a civil war because they are in another region while Khadafy is in his own with his supporters. This may answer your quandary as well, if the people in Tripoli do protest Khadafy it means that this is still a uprising or riot perhaps even a revolt but not a civil war.
This is based strictly on definitions where societal arbitration that is to say not in anyway my own conjecture are in question should you pursue I would readily reference them.
If you think that civilian toll is the context from which I'm addressing chunky then your mistaken.
It wouldn't be too hard to argue why Bahrain is of key interest for the US given it's location and keenness with US interests. Fact is they didn't even though the US quite possibly had much more reason to have pushed aggressively diplomatically in Bahrain.
