Rath said:
I posted a reply to this, don't know where it went. Essentially, high HDI doesn't change the fact that Gaddafi is a brutal evil tyrant. That's not what the HDI measures. Better measures for how much of a brutal dictator he is are things measuring human rights, press freedoms and political freedoms. http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011 http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/Tables, Graphs, etc, FIW 2011_Revised 1_11_11.pdf http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=560&year=2010
Also the UN Human Rights Council is sadly an intensely political organisation and is dominated by countries with poor human rights records, they really (and sadly) can't be taken seriously.
Edit: @Kasz. All of the three major military interventions this century by America have been very different. Opposing some while supporting others is not necessarily hypocritical. |
No worse than other countries. I understand the rebellion for civil liberties, and support it, but I think the US should have stayed out. This should be something that their people handle, not outside forces. Remember that the rebel forces took a major city by themselves, then were kicked back out. I'm pretty sure they still have strong enough fighting force to handle themselves. If anything, some guns might help, do not send troops.
And if I remember my history, the Arab monarch that Gaddafi ousted was much worse. Some acts of questionable imprisonment and other acts can be seen in all countries, including the USA, but what Gaddafi is doing is still not something I'm going to say shouldn't be questioned. America just should not be involved past maybe selling some weapons to help get us out of debt.
And why are we in Libya if it isn't for oil? Shouldn't we also be in Yemen and the others if this was to prevent something or "protect Israel"? Really, think about it. We have wasted our money in the middle east so far, so why not take over and change the entire middle east into what the USA envisions?
